Skip to main content

Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1980"

See other formats 


___  No.  111 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  November  13,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of   the   proceedings   reported  in  this   issue   of  Hansard  appears   at   the   back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  9th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4211 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 
Prayers. 

ACCESS  TO  LEGISLATIVE  BUILDING 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  On  a  point  of  privi- 
lege, Mr.  Speaker:  When  I  returned  to  my 
office  at  1:40  this  afternoon  I  was  stopped 
at  the  north  door  by  a  member  of  the  Ontario 
Government  Protective  Service.  He  first  asked 
me  if  he  could  be  of  assistance  to  me.  When 
I  informed  him  that  he  could  not  be  of  as- 
sistance to  me,  he  asked  me  if  I  worked 
here.  I  said,  "No,  I  am  a  member  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly."  He  said,  "Sorry,  sir." 

When  I  suggested  to  him  that  I  would  be 
rather  upset  if  any  of  my  constituents  were 
grilled  as  they  tried  to  come  to  visit  me  in 
my  office,  his  response  was  that  his  superiors 
would  be  even  more  upset  if  he  didn't  stop 
people  at  the  entrance  to  this  building.  This 
particular  guard  is  new  to  his  duties  at 
Queen's  Park  and  I  have  no  complaint 
against  him  personally.  That  does  not  con- 
stitute part  of  my  point  of  privilege. 

However,  when  I  contacted  Senior  Super- 
visor Watts  of  the  government  protective 
service  at  Queen's  Park  and  asked  him  what 
orders  had  been  given  to  the  security  staff 
here,  I  got  the  following  explanation  of  what 
kind  of  people  would  be  stopped  and  held  at 
the  doors  of  the  building.  I  think  Mr.  Watts' 
definition  includes  a  large  number  of  the 
members  of  the  assembly.  He  said:  "There 
is  a  consensus  that  you  can  spot  people  with 
a  grievance  against  the  government,  people 
who  want  to  air  their  views,  or  people  who 
are  not  quite  right  in  the  mind."  He  said  he 
thought  the  guard  had  probably  stopped  me 
because  it  was  the  first  time  he  had  seen  me. 

As  I  say,  this  person  is  new  to  his  duties 
here  and  I  have  no  complaint  against  him, 
but  that  is  an  incredibly  unacceptable  answer 
for  the  government  protective  service  to 
provide.  I  don't  want  any  of  my  constituents 
to  be  treated  like  that.  I  think  my  privileges 
and  the  privileges  of  my  constituents  have 
been  breached.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
you  to  look  into  this  matter.  Specifically  I 
would  like  to  know  who  gave  those  orders  to 
the  security  staff  in  this  building. 


Thursday,  November  13,  1980 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  we  all  have  had 
those  difficulties  from  time  to  time  as  a 
result  of  quite  a  large  turnover  of  staff.  Ob- 
viously there  has  been  a  misunderstanding. 
I  will  undertake  to  look  into  it. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

TORONTO  ISLAND  HOMES 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  today  I  will 
be  introducing  a  bill  that  will  effectively  stay 
the  execution  of  the  writs  of  possession  upon 
the  residents  of  Toronto  Island  until  July  1, 
1981.  This  action  is  necessary  because  on 
October  27  the  Ontario  Court  of  Appeal 
found  the  writs  of  possession  to  be  still  valid. 
At  that  time,  the  commission,  headed  by 
Barry  Swadron,  QC,  was  still  under  way. 

Last  June  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in 
Council  established  this  commission,  under 
section  249  of  the  Municipality  of  Metro- 
politan Toronto  Act,  to  inquire  into  the 
future  use  of  those  lands  on  Ward's  and 
Algonquin  islands  that  were  used  for  resi- 
dential purposes.  Originally  the  intention  was 
to  have  a  commission  made  up  of  five 
people,  two  from  the  city  of  Toronto  and 
two  from  Metro,  along  with  Mr.  Swadron. 
However,  during  the  summer  Metro  declined 
to  nominate  its  two  commissioners,  so  the 
commission  was  set  up  with  Mr.  Swadron 
only. 

This  is  the  first  time  the  whole  issue  of 
future  uses  for  these  islands  has  been  looked 
at  in  depth  by  an  independent  commission. 
Mr.  Swadron  has  been  holding  meetings  and 
intense  discussions  over  the  past  few  months 
with  everyone  interested  and  concerned 
about  this  matter.  There  has  been  an  oppor- 
tunity for  a  thorough  examination  of  the 
situation.  The  commission  has  received  160 
written  submissions  and  has  heard  from  more 
than   140  individuals  during  the  hearings. 

I  understand  the  commissioner  has  almost 
completed  all  the  groundwork,  the  meetings, 
the  discussions  and  the  research,  and  has 
begun  to  write  his  report,  which  we  expect 
to  be  submitted  in  December.  The  passage 
of  this  bill  will  allow  the  residents  of  the 
islands  to  remain  in  their  homes  until  the 
Swadron  commission  can  report  and  its  rec- 
ommendations can  be  responded  to. 


4212 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


2:10  p.m. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  give  the  members  of  the  House  an  up- 
date on  our  seven-point  program  to  develop 
the  needed  facilities  to  treat  and  control 
liquid  industrial  waste. 

First  of  all,  I  am  tabling  today  an  update 
of  our  investigation  to  date  into  the  allega- 
tions over  the  operations  of  Walker  Brothers 
Quarries  in  the  Niagara  Region.  Secondly,  I 
would  like  to  report  on  the  status  of  our 
various  proposals  for  interim  and  short-term 
waste  facilities.  However,  before  I  do  that, 
I  would  like  to  draw  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  the  interim  report  on  liquid  waste 
from  the  standing  committee  on  resources 
development. 

(Although  the  report  is  already  part  of  the 
official  record  of  this  House,  I  want  to  com- 
mend the  committee  for  its  excellent  recom- 
mendation. As  this  House  will  note,  many  of 
the  recommendations  have  been  incorporated 
into  our  program,  including  the  suggestion 
that  the  ministry  should  assist  and  encourage 
companies  in  establishing  a  solidification 
plant  in  the  province. 

The  citizens  of  Thorold  held  a  referendum 
on  Monday  to  express  their  opinion  on  the 
proposal  to  locate  a  solidification  facility  near 
their  community.  The  result  was  an  over- 
whelming no.  During  September  a  local 
newspaper  conducted  an  informal  but  well- 
organized  poll  on  the  attitude  of  the  residents 
of  Harwich  township  to  a  similar  proposal. 
Again  there  was  an  overwhelming  response 
expressing  opposition  to  this  proposal.  In 
each  of  these  communities,  the  citizens  have 
taken  their  position  before  the  environmental 
assessment  process  had  the  opportunity  to 
study  adequately  the  safety  and  the  effective- 
ness of  the  proposals,  or  to  demonstrate  the 
urgent  need. 

Both  sides  of  the  House,  as  recommended 
in  the  committee  report,  have  stated  a  com- 
mitment to  the  public  hearing  process  as  a 
step  in  decision-making.  I  not  only  concurred 
with  that  recommendation,  but  I  so  ordered 
it.  Yet  certain  members  have  acted  to  frus- 
trate the  environmental  assessment  process  by 
urging  rejection  before  hearings  could  be 
held  and  the  issues  fully  addressed.  Clearly, 
the  temptation  to  support  the  "not  in  my 
backyard"  syndrome  is  an  easy  and  attrac- 
tive position  for  a  politician. 

Ontario  is  clearly  running  out  of  options 
for  the  treatment  of  liquid  industrial  waste 
and  the  crisis  is  building.  The  combination  of 


these  many  factors  has  now  served  to  delay 
the  establishment  of  urgently  needed  facili- 
ties. My  ministry  has  been  considering  other 
options  for  some  time,  but  I  do  not  intend 
to  make  a  final  decision  on  our  future  course 
of  action  until  we  have  received  the  final 
report  from  James  F.  MacLaren  Limited. 

As  the  honourable  members  will  recall, 
this  engineering  consulting  firm  was  hired  in 
January  1979  to  make  recommendations  on  a 
permanent,  long-term  liquid  waste  treatment 
facility.  The  completion  of  this  report  has 
been  a  high  priority.  The  final  cost  is  esti- 
mated at  just  under  $425,000.  I  anticipate 
the  recommendations  will  form  the  basis  of 
the  government's  future  plan  of  action.  I 
expect  to  receive  this  final  report  tomorrow. 
After  I  have  personally  had  the  opportunity 
to  assess  the  recommendations,  I  will  report 
back  to  the  House  on  November  25.  At  that 
time,  I  will  table  the  report  and  outline  the 
ministry's  course  of  action. 

In  the  meantime,  I  am  putting  a  freeze 
on  ministry  activities  and  participation  in 
the  proposals  for  solidification  facilities  in 
Harwich  township,  as  well  as  at  Walker 
Brothers,  and  for  the  interim  storage  facil- 
ity for  polychlorinated  biphenyls  in  Middle- 
port. 

COMMUNITY  SERVICES 
CONTRIBUTION  PROGRAM 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  regret 
that  today  I  must  inform  the  House  that 
my  colleague  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment (Mr.  Parrott)  and  I  have  received 
notification  from  the  Honourable  Paul  Cos- 
grove,  federal  Minister  of  Public  Works  and 
the  minister  responsible  for  Canada  Mort- 
gage and  Housing  Corporation,  that  the 
community  services  contribution  program 
wall  terminate  with  the  expiration  of  the 
interim  agreement  on  December  31,   1980. 

The  arbitrary  termination  of  this  program, 
which  replaced  funding  for  the  former 
neighbourhood  improvement  program,  mu- 
nicipal incentive  grant  program  and  munic- 
ipal infrastructure  program,  and  has  oper- 
ated successfully  in  Ontario,  is  of  signifi- 
cant importance  to  bring  before  the  Legis- 
lature for  two  basic  reasons. 

First,  the  unilateral  decision  of  the  federal 
government  to  share  no  longer  in  the  costs 
of  water  and  sewerage  installations  or  neigh- 
bourhood improvement  projects,  or  to  pro- 
vide capital  support  for  nonprofit  housing 
under  the  CSCP  not  only  will  affect  the 
quality  of  life  of  many  Canadian  residents 
but    will    also    have    far-reaching    economic 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4213 


consequences  in  terms  of  forgone  construc- 
tion and1  loss  of  indirect  and  induced  employ- 
ment. 

Second,  the  current  agreement,  which 
terminates  in  less  than  seven  weeks,  states 
that  both  parties  will  endeavour  to  conclude 
a  long-term  agreement  prior  to  December  31, 
1980,  and'  that  negotiations  for  this  program 
would  commence  not  later  than  November  1 
of  last  year.  The  termination  of  this  program 
is  a  complete  reversal  of  the  spirit  in  which 
the  original  program  negotiations  were  con- 
ducted and  the  direction  in  which  my  min- 
istry and  CMHC  have  been  moving  for  the 
past  two  years.  This  places  the  entire  federal- 
provincial  negotiation  process  in  question  at 
a  most  inopportune  time.  One  wonders 
whether  unilateral  federal  action  will  termi- 
nate other  existing  financial  arrangements. 

I  would  like  to  provide  the  honourable 
members  with  some  specifics  as  the  program 
relates  to  Ontario.  In  the  first  program 
year,  1979,  the  federal  government  allocated 
$51.6  million  to  Ontario  which  escalated  to 
$85.95  million  in  the  second  year,  1980. 
This  level  was  to  continue  over  a  long-term 
period.  The  related  provincial  contributions 
to  eligible  municipal  projects  were  $90  mil- 
lion in  the  first  year,  1979,  and  $153  million 
in  the  second  year,  1980. 

Municipalities  from  all  parts  of  the  prov- 
ince, ranging  in  size  from  the  cities  of 
Toronto,  Ottawa,  Windsor,  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
and  Timmins,  to  the  towns  of  Chesley,  Smiths 
Falls  and  Leamington,  are  participating 
in  neighbourhood-improvement-type  projects 
funded  in  part  by  CSCP  funds.  These  pro- 
jects are  upgrading  existing  neighbourhoods 
through  the  improvement  of  municipal  serv- 
ices and  public  utilities  as  well  as  the  pro- 
vision of  social  and  recreational  facilities. 
These  efforts,  combined  with  the  Ontario 
main  street  and  downtown  revitalization  pro- 
grams, are  contributing  to  the  fight  against 
urban  decline  which  is  plaguing  cities  and 
towns  in  parts  of  our  province  and  indeed 
in  Canada. 

In  all,  45  municipalities  are  improving  the 
quality  of  life  for  their  residents  through  this 
component  of  CSCP  in  the  first  two  program 
years  and  the  demand  for  the  program 
stretches  far  into  the  future.  For  example, 
the  municipal  demand  for  funds  in  1980, 
or  program  year  two,  amounted  to  approx- 
imately $46  million  from  48  municipalities 
in  our  province.  However,  only  $23  million 
of  federal  CSCP  funds  were  available  on 
a  priority  basis  to  fund  projects  in  30  mu- 
nicipalities.    Eighteen     other     municipalities 


with  defined  needs  were  deferred  in  anticipa- 
tion of  the  continuation  of  the  program 
and  were  expecting  to  receive  CSCP  funds 
from  program  years  three,  four,  five  and 
beyond. 

In  terms  of  employment,  approximately 
3,000  man-years  of  direct  and  indirect  em- 
ployment were  generated  by  the  expendi- 
tures of  all  three  levels  of  government  on 
hard  services  in  the  first  two  program  years. 
In  addition,  the  private  sector  has  been  en- 
couraged to  renovate  and  rehabilitate  resi- 
dential and  commercial  properties  in  NIP 
areas,  producing  employment  and  increasing 
property  values   and  municipal  revenues. 

Another  component  of  the  program  in 
Ontario  was  a  10  per  cent  capital  write- 
down for  municipal  nonprofit  corporations. 
The  first  program  year  provided  $6.6  million 
in  federal  funds  and  assisted  in  the  provision 
of  approximately  1,200  units  and  produced 
4,200  man-years  of  employment  throughout 
this  province.  It  is  anticipated  that  2,100 
more  units  will  receive  grants  from  program 
year  two,  amounting  to  approximately  $12 
million,  to  produce  7,350  more  man-years  of 
employment.  These  nonprofit  units  for  the 
most  part  will  provide  accommodation  to 
families  and  senior  citizens  of  low  and 
moderate  income  and  are  good  examples  of 
the  benefits  of  CSCP  to  the  people  of  Ontario. 

However,  these  federal  capital  grants  will 
no  longer  be  available.  The  bulk  of  the 
CSCP  allocation  to  Ontario  is  utilized  by  our 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  for  municipal 
infrastructure  projects.  The  gross  value  of 
water  and  waste  water  facilities  and  storm 
sewers  constructed  annually  in  Ontario  is 
estimated  to  be  about  $550  million.  More 
than  300  projects,  worth  about  $375  million, 
are  directly  assisted  by  the  CSCP  grants, 
amounting  to  $52  million  per  year. 

However,  the  termination  of  the  CSCP 
will  cause  about  $175  million  of  construction 
of  water  and  waste  water  facilities  to  be 
lost  annually  in  Ontario.  Some  95  projects  in 
about  50  municipalities  will  be  affected  and 
direct  onsite  construction  employment  loss 
could  approach  3,000  man-years  annually, 
based  on  1980-81  prices.  Loss  of  indirect  and 
induced  employment,  e.g.,  equipment  manu- 
facturing and  supply  of  materials,  will  be 
at  least  6,000  man-years  annually. 

The  related  effects  on  housing  starts  and 
the  curtailment  of  the  growth  due  to  a  slow- 
down in  the  servicing  of  raw  land  are  diffi- 
cult to  estimate,  but  will  be  substantial. 
We  anticipate  the  main  effects  will  be  felt  in 
small  to  medium-sized  urban  centres  where 


4214 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


insufficient  municipal  financing  will  force  the 
deferral  of  servicing. 

2:20  p.m. 

The  environmental  consequences  of  the 
termination  of  the  federal  funding  related  to 
municipal  infrastructure  projects  must  also 
be  considered.  For  example,  under  the  Can- 
ada-Ontario agreement  on  Great  Lakes  water 
quality,  in  excess  of  $600  million  in  federal 
funds  was  utilized  to  accelerate  the  cleanup 
of  the  municipally  caused  water  pollution 
problems.  The  successful  efforts  of  the  three 
levels  of  government  allowed  Canada  to  meet 
its  international  commitment  under  the 
Canada-US  agreement  and  provide  leverage 
in  promoting  comparable  US  pollution  abate- 
ment efforts. 

The  demands  of  the  1980s  for  protection 
and  improvement  of  the  Great  Lakes  will  be 
even  greater  than  those  of  the  1960s  and 
1970s.  Governments  are  committed  to  an  in- 
ternational response  in  connection  with  the 
reduction  of  toxic  and  hazardous  substances, 
the  control  of  raw  sewage,  combined  sewage 
and  storm  water  discharges,  and1  the  further 
reduction  of  phosphorus  discharges  from  ur- 
ban and  rural  sources.  The  termination  of 
CSCP  will  now  seriously  weaken  Ontario's 
ability  to  meet  commitments  under  the 
Canada-Ontario  agreement  and,  in  turn,  the 
Canada-US  agreement  on  Great  Lakes  water 
quality. 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  emerging  prob- 
lem areas  that  will  require  capital-intensive 
solutions  and  will  now  further  burden  pro- 
vincial and  municipal  spending.  It  would  be 
unrealistic  for  me  to  suggest  that  the  prov- 
ince will  be  able  to  fill  the  gap  created  by 
the  withdrawal  of  federal  funding.  I  will 
be  meeting  in  the  near  future  with  the  pro- 
vincial Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller),  the  Min- 
ister of  the  Environment  and  the  Minister 
of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Mr.  Wells)  to 
discuss  this  matter.  But  we  are  still  looking 
to  the  federal  government  for  funding  in 
those  areas  it  has  traditionally  funded  for 
years  in  the  past. 

My  cabinet  colleagues  and  I  are  deeply 
disturbed  by  the  termination  of  the  CSCP, 
as  the  municipalities  of  our  province  will 
be.  To  date  I  have  received  copies  of  reso- 
lutions from  more  than  100  municipalities 
addressed  to  the  federal  Minister  of  Public 
Works  urging  continuation  of  that  program. 
This  unilateral  federal  Liberal  decision  is  a 
classic  example  of  the  insensitivity  of  the 
federal  government  to  the  needs  of  the 
provinces    and   their   municipalities. 

Interjections. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  am  waiting  until 
these  members  start  to  bark  about  their  mu- 
nicipalities not  getting  funding.  I  am  waiting. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Did  you  wait  to  get  the  Pre- 
mier's (Mr.  Davis)  approval  before  you  came 
in  with  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  The  member  for  Huron- 
Middlesex  should  wait  until  he  finds  his  area 
does  not  get  its  sewer  and  water  grants;  we 
will  see  what  he  has  to  say  then.  Obviously 
these  members  are  going  to  do  their  barking 
here  because  they  are  afraid  to  do  it  back 
home;  I  can  see  that. 

It  is  becoming  increasingly  apparent  that 
as  it  attempts  to  control  expenditures,  the 
federal  government  is  adopting  a  policy  of 
unilateral  program  abandonment.  This  course 
of  action,  if  it  is  pursued  to  its  extreme  in 
the  social  policy  area  of  which  the  CSCP 
and  the  housing  programs  are  part,  will  se- 
riously impair  the  province's  ability  to  pro- 
vide housing  accommodation  for  those  of 
low  and  moderate  income.  The  serious 
economic  and  social  consequences  that  will 
result  from  this  federal  decision  have  been 
outlined. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  like  to  state  quite 
emphatically  that  when  the  CSCP  was 
launched  in  1979,  there  was  never  any 
thought  it  would  not  be  continued  for  a 
lengthy  period  of  time  in  Canada.  No  con- 
sultation was  held  with  any  of  the  provinces 
prior  to  the  federal  decision  to  terminate 
the  program,  nor  have  we  received  any  in- 
formation regarding  a  possible  replacement. 

Ontario,  together  with  the  other  prov- 
inces, invited  the  Minister  of  Public  Works, 
Mr.  Cosgrove,  to  participate  in  an  August 
meeting  to  discuss  our  concerns  about  the 
program  but  he  declined  to  attend.  He  de- 
cided he  would  rather  cut  a  ribbon  in  his 
own  riding  on  a  CSCP  grant  he  was  giving 
out  that  day.  He  has  now  indicated  that 
he  is  looking  forward  to  a  meeting  with 
us  early  in  1981;  I  would  suggest  it  is  a 
little  late  for  the  subject  now. 

In  the  interim,  I  would  urge  all  munici- 
palities and  groups  affected  by  the  termina- 
tion of  the  program  to  get  in  touch  with 
their  federal  members,  with  the  federal 
Minister  of  Finance  and  with  the  federal 
minister  reporting  for  housing  and  request 
them  to  reinstate  the  long-term  federal-pro- 
vincial agreement  that  was  understood  to  be 
staying  in  place. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  apologize  for  the  length  of 
the  statement  but  I  felt  the  House  should 
have  a  full  explanation  of  the  ramifications 
of  this  discontinuation  by  the  federal  Liberal 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4215 


government  of  a  program  that  has  been  good 
for  the  economy  of  this  country. 

MINI-BUDGET 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
point  of  privilege  relating  to  the  mini-budget 
that  will  be  brought  in  by  the  Treasurer 
(Mr.   F.   S.  Miller)  this  evening. 

I  have  before  me  a  copy  of  Corriere  Illus- 
trato  dated  Saturday,  November  8,  1980. 
On  page  one  is  an  article  which,  when  trans- 
lated, reads,  "Grossman  Predicts  Sales  Tax 
Reduction."  The  article  is  what  is  described 
as  an  exclusive  interview  with  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  in  which  the  min- 
ister clearly  indicates  the  government  intends 
to  bring  in  sales  tax  reductions  in  the  mini- 
budget  tonight. 

Surely  as  members  of  the  Legislature  we 
are  entitled  to  have  first  look  at  the  budget. 
I  was  always  under  the  impression  that  there 
were  traditions  within  the  parliamentary  sys- 
tem that  had  to  do  with  the  prerelease  of 
budget  information  before  it  was  brought 
into  this  House. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  has 
been  speculation  in  a  number  of  newspapers 
and  by  a  number  of  people,  including  mem- 
bers of  both  parties.  I  can  assure  the  mem- 
ber at  this  point  that  the  minister  does  not 
know  what  is   in  the  budget. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  would  appear,  surely, 
that  it  is  in  the  tradition  of  cabinet  soli- 
darity in  government  that  various  specula- 
tions on  component  parts  of  any  budget  have 
caused  ministers  to  lose  their  jobs  in  a  variety 
of  areas. 

I  would  suggest  to  the  Treasurer  that  if 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  does 
not  know  what  is  in  the  budget,  perhaps 
the  Treasurer  should  lose  his  job,  because 
obviously  the  cabinet  does  not  know  what 
one  side  or  the  other  is  doing.  If  this  has 
been  a  breach,  which  I  think  it  may  well 
have  been  from  the  report,  it  may  well  be 
a  serious  breach  of  the  traditional  respon- 
sibility of   cabinet   government. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  here  a 
question  of  cabinet  responsibility.  The  Treas- 
urer has  just  told  us  that  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  did  not  know  what 
was  in  the  mini-budget  coming  tonight.  If 
that  is  true,  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  misled  the  reporter  who  reported 
the  story  and  he  has  misled  the  public  who 
read  that  publication.  If  that  is  true,  he  has 
caused  speculation  and  possible  buying  or 
lack  of  buying  because  of  financial  informa- 


tion that  the  reporter  had  every  reason  to 
expect  the  minister  had.  There  deserves  to 
be  not  only  an  apology  from  the  minister, 
but  a  demand  for  his  resignation  put  by  the 
Premier  (Mr.  Davis). 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  some  in  the 
House  may  recall  that  a  few  years  ago  a 
federal  member  by  the  name  of  John  Reid, 
MP,  who  was  not  then  in  the  cabinet,  was 
brought  before  a  committee  of  the  House 
of  Commons  because  he  had  indicated  to 
one  of  his  constituents  by  way  of  letter 
that  he  thought  there  might  be  a  certain 
tax  break  in  the  forthcoming  budget.  As  I 
said,  at  that  time  John  Reid  was  not  a  mem- 
ber of  the  cabinet  and  had  absolutely  no 
information  or  knowledge  about  what  was 
going  to  be  in  the  budget. 

This  matter  was  raised  in  a  newspaper 
article  and  there  was  great  concern  ex- 
pressed, particularly  by  the  members  of  the 
Conservative  opposition  in  Ottawa  at  that 
time.  My  brother,  Mr.  Reid,  subsequently 
had  his  hearing  and  was  absolved  of  all 
blame  or  anything  else. 

Surely  this  is  an  extremely  important  mat- 
ter and  goes  to  the  fundamentals  of  our 
democratic  system  and  process.  The  whole 
theory  and  practice  of  cabinet  solidarity  is 
that  when  a  cabinet  minister  speaks,  he 
speaks  for  the  cabinet  as  a  whole.  I  do  not 
think  we  can  take  this  matter  lightly  at  all. 
We  should  refer  this  matter  to  the  standing 
committee  on  procedural  affairs  for  its  at- 
tention. 

2:30  p.m. 

Mr.   Speaker:  There  are  two  points  here. 
The  first  one  is  that  the  member  for  Bell- 
woods  is   drawing  the  chair's  attention  and 
the   House's   attention  to   something  that  is 
alleged  to  have  been  said  outside  the  House  f 
by  way  of  a  newspaper  interview.  The  other 
point  that  has  been  raised  is  whether  or  not 
there  has  been  a  leak  of  information  about   j 
something  that  is  supposed  to  be  in  a  state-    j 
ment  by  the  Treasurer  this  evening. 

The  chair  cannot  be  asked  to  rule  on 
something  that  took  place  by  way  of  an  in- 
terview. The  chair  similarly  cannot  be  ex- 
pected to  monitor  whether  or  not  there  has 
been  a  breach  of  cabinet  solidarity.  In  the 
absence  of  definitive  action  by  the  House,  I  I 
would  have  to  say  the  honourable  member 
has  brought  the  matter  to  the  attention  of 
the  chair  and  the  House  and  it  is  beyond  my 
purview  to  do  anything  other  than  to  have 
listened  to  the  honourable  member. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  view  of 
your  ruling   on  this  very  important  matter, 


4216 


{LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


may  I  ask  whether  it  would  be  in  order  at 
this  time  for  a  resolution  to  be  put  to  refer 
this  matter  to  the  standing  committee  on  pro- 
cedural affairs? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  no  opportunity  for 
any  honourable  member  to  get  up  without  a 
notice  of  motion  and  move  a  resolution  in  the 
House.  If  the  honourable  member  wants  to 
go  that  route,  it  will  be  up  to  the  House  to 
decide  whether  it  is  something  appropriate 
for  referral. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  this  point,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  we  should  wait  to  see  what  is  in  the 
budgetary  statement  by  the  Treasurer  this 
evening.  If  it  confirms  statements  that  were 
made  by  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism, it  seems  to  me  there  will  then  be  a 
prima  facie  case  that  information  in  the  hands 
of  a  cabinet  minister  was  improperly  put  out 
to  the  public  and  the  matter  should  be  in- 
vestigated by  the  standing  committee  on  pro- 
cedural affairs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  purely  hypothetical. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  keep  this 
matter  in  perspective,  I  would  gather  my 
friends  across  the  way  have  not  seen  the 
article  in  the  paper.  We  are  talking  about  an 
article  in  a  paper  that  has  been  paraphrased 
for  us  by  a  member  and  has  not  been  seen 
by  anyone  else  in  the  House  except  perhaps 
some  other  colleagues  in  his  caucus. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  the  people  who  read  the 
paper. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  That  is  all  right;  the 
people  who  read  the  paper. 

We  are  taking  the  honourable  member's 
translation  of  that  story.  I  think  before  we 
come  to  any  hasty  conclusions  about  any- 
thing, we  should  all  have  the  article  with  a 
complete  translation. 

My  friend  from  Rainy  River  referred  to  the 
case  of  his  brother.  That  case  and  the  letter 
were  mentioned  prominently  in  many  news- 
papers. It  was  not  something  that  was  un- 
known to  people  at  the  time  it  came  before 
the  House.  He  is  suggesting  that  this  House 
take  some  sort  of  action  and  ask  a  committee 
to  look  into  something  without  our  even 
having  a  complete  translation  of  some  story 
that  has  appeared  in  a  newspaper.  I  think  it 
behooves  us  all  at  least  to  get  all  that  in- 
formation before  anyone  considers  any 
further  action. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  separate  point  of  order, 
if  I  might,  Mr.  Speaker:  When  the  Minister 


of  the  Environment  spoke,  he  referred  to  a 
certain  report  he  was  making  to  the  Legis- 
lature. I  did  not  hear  clearly  whether  this 
additional  report,  which  in  fact  constitutes 
an  apology  to  Walker  Brothers  concerning  the 
matter  raised  in  this  House  last  week- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Whether  or  not  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  heard  or  was  satis- 
fied that  the  statement  by  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  satisfied  some  misgivings  that 
he  has— 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Not  at  all.  That  is  not  the 
point. 

Mr.  Speaker:  —he  can  raise  it  in  the  ques- 
tion period. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  That  is  not  the  point,  Mr. 
Speaker.  On  the  point  of  order- 
Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  not  a  point  of  order. 
There  is  nothing  out  of  order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  There  is.  I  did  not  finish  my 
sentence,   Mr.   Speaker,   and   I   am  going  to 
finish  my  sentence. 
Mr.  Speaker:  No. 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  question  is— 
Mr.    Speaker:    There    is    nothing    out    of 
order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  —was  this  placed  on  the 
record  or  not? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  nothing  out  of  order. 
Does  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  have  a 
question? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  will  ask  the  question  of 
the  minister.  Mr.  Speaker,  with  the  greatest 
respect,  I  think  in  this  instance  you  should 
have  heard  the  point. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  What  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  is  saying  is  that  by  virtue  of 
the  fact  that  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
stood  up  and  made  a  statement  to  the  House, 
he  was  out  of  order  or  the  House  was  out 
of  order  in  listening  to  him.  That  is  what  a 
point  of  order  means. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  No,  it  has  to  do  with  this 
report. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  a  ministerial  statement, 
and  if  the  honourable  member  wants  the 
minister  to  elaborate  on  it,  he  can  simply  do 
so  by  asking  him  a  question.  Do  you  have  a 
question? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Again,  you  have  miscon- 
strued my  point,  Mr.  Speaker.  With  the  great- 
est respect,  this  says  "a  report  to  the  Ontario 
Legislature." 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  have  a  question? 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  All  right,  I  will  ask  a  ques- 
tion. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4217 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  ruled  there  is  nothing 
out  of  order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  All  right,  I  will  accept  your 
ruling. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  do  not  need  to  get  up  on 
your  high  horse.  I  have  called  for  oral  ques- 
tions and  if  you  have  one,  please  put  it. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  will  ask  the  minister 
whether  this  statement,  which  is  called  a 
report  to  the  Ontario  Legislature,  which  he 
made  some  reference  to  but  did  not  read, 
and  which  I  take  to  be  an  apology  to  Walker 
Brothers  as  well  as  covering  certain  other 
matters— on  the  very  matters  raised  in  this 
House  last  week— has  been  tabled  with  the 
Clerk  so  that  it  is  on  the  record  of  the  House. 
I  would  ask  why  he  did  not  read  it  and 
whether  he  intends  not  only  to  apologize  to 
Walker  Brothers  as  he  has  via  this  letter, 
but  to  apologize  to  this  House  for  his  re- 
fusal to  acknowledge  here  what  he  has  finally 
been  willing  to  acknowledge  in  this  letter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure 
the  letter  and  the  report  are  part  of  the  record 
of  the  House  and  I  do  not  have  any  ques- 
tions that  they  should  be.  I  do  not  mind  any 
part  of  that  letter  or  any  part  of  this  report 
being  read  into  the  record  a  second  time. 
That  is  perfectly  okay  by  me. 

There  were  allegations  made.  I  am  sure 
this  House  would  ask  me  to  take  those  alle- 
gations seriously.  That  I  did.  There  were 
three  or  four  of  them.  The  one  matter,  I 
think,  is  clearly  something  the  official  of  the 
ministry  made  a  statement  about.  I  do  not 
think  the  facts  bear  the  matter  out.  I  have 
said  that  in  the  letter.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  as 
a  courtesy  to  Mr.  Walker,  I  called  him  at 
1:15  this  afternoon  so  I  am  not  at  all  em- 
barrassed by  having  that  on  the  record.  In- 
deed, on  the  contrary,  there  are  other  alle- 
gations still  pending.  I  think  this  House  would 
clearly  expect  me  to  act  on  these  allegations 
and  put  them  all  on  the  record.  That  I  shall 
do. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  Since  the 
minister  continues  to  be  willing  to  admit  that 
the  point  we  raised  repeatedly  last  week  was 
correct  but  still  refuses  to  acknowledge  this 
in  a  gentlemanly  way— that  is  exactly  what 
has  happened— I  will  ask  him  this: 

Could  the  minister  explain  why  he  and  his 
official,  Mr.  Majtenyi,  still  insist  on  express- 
ing shock  to  discover  liquids  of  some  kind  had 
been  placed  in  the  Walker  Brothers  quarry, 
when  a  letter  to  the  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine  (Ms.  Bryden)  in  September  1978, 
signed  by  the  minister,  said  his  records  indi- 


cated liquid  waste  disposal  had  occurred  in 
these  eight  sites,  including  Walker's  quarry? 

Since  in  1978  the  minister  knew  liquids 
had1  been  deposited  in  Walker's  quarry,  why 
should  he  have  pretended  to  this  House 
that  somehow  it  was  a  shock  to  learn  liquids 
appeared  there  and  that  the  whole  matter 
came  to  his  attention  at  the  time  of  the 
W5  program? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  it  is  clear  that 
that  certificate  at  that  time  was  quite  a  dif- 
ferent certificate  from  the  one  that  exists 
today.  The  certificate  was  amended  on  June 
23,  1980,  and  that  is  the  continuing  pro- 
gram of  this  ministry;  we  will  update  our 
certificates. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  certificates  never  allow 
liquids. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  if  one  were  to 
look  at  those  certificates  carefully  over  the 
past  decade,  one  would  find  that  in  earlier 
times  they  were  not  as  definitive  as  I  think 
they  should  be  and  as  we  are  moving  to- 
wards. That  was  one  of  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  standing  committee.  We  believe 
the  certificates  should  be  far  more  definitive 
than  they  were  in  1973,  1974  and  later.  In 
the  decade  of  the  1960s  there  were  no  cer- 
tificates to  speak  of  at  all;  one  could  do 
practically  what  one  wanted. 

2:40   p.m. 

We  are  moving  in  a  direct  fashion  to 
have  the  certificates  made  far  more  specific 
and  much  tougher  on  how  those  wastes  are 
handled.  We  will  continue  to  do  so.  I  have 
repeatedly  said  to  industry:  "You  have  to 
face  up  to  the  fact  that  you  are  going  to  be 
severely  regulated  on  the  matter  of  liquid 
industrial  waste.  You  have  to  face  up  to 
the  fact  that  you  are  going  to  pay  for  the 
destruction  of  those  wastes  and  there  is  no 
other  alternative  for  industry."  They  must 
face  the  reality  that  a  new  day  has  dawned. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  view  of  the  minister's  promise  of  tough- 
ness and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  his  state- 
ment indicates  quite  clearly  that  at  least 
seven  drums  containing  various  kinds  of 
liquid  waste  were  buried  in  the  Walker's 
quarry  dump— as  per  the  written  statement 
from  Mr.  Edenson  that  I  tabled  in  the  Leg- 
islature a  few  days  ago— at  a  time  when 
Walker  Brothers  licence  quite  clearly  did  not 
permit  it  to  accept  liquid  wastes,  and  since 
the  ministry  also  indicates  there  may  be  70 
more  drums  containing  similar  materials,  is 
it  the  ministry's  intention  now,  being  so 
tough,  to  prosecute   Walker  Brothers  Quar- 


4218 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ries  for  illegally  accepting  liquid  waste  con- 
trary to  its  licence? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  matter 
is  under  two  investigations.  One  is  being 
done  by  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police,  and 
I  have  not  received  that  report  yet  but  1 
expect  it  should  be  completed  soon.  The 
other  is  being  done  to  determine  whether 
there  is  a  breach  of  the  certificate.  That  is 
a  very  significant  problem  that  must  be 
addressed.  I  can  assure  the  member  that  if 
and  when  there  is  proof  there  was  a  viola- 
tion of  that  certificate,  charges  will  be  laid, 
but  I  do  not  have  the  privilege  of  making 
allegations  and  simply  saying  it  will  be  done; 
I  must  have  the  positive  proof. 

We  are  in  the  process  of  getting  those 
drums,  doing  the  analysis  on  them  and  find- 
ing what  is  in  those  drums.  Not  only  that, 
in  the  two  that  were  empty,  we  are  doing 
scrapings  on  the  drums  to  see  if  perhaps 
the  liquid  has  leaked  out  and  what  might 
have  been  in  there.  We  are  doing  the  most 
thorough  and  comprehensive  investigation 
that  is  possible.  Based  on  that  certain  knowl- 
edge, we  will  take  the  appropriate- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Last  week  the  minister 
wanted  one  drum,  that  was  all.  It  is  the 
pressure  in  this  House  that  has  made  that 
happen. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Not  at  all.  It  was  done 
well  in  advance. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  Why  has 
the  minister  persisted  in  his  story  that  the 
reason  liquids  went  in  there— and  they  were 
reported  to  the  member  for  Beaches- Wood- 
bine in  1978,  yet  somehow  come  as  a  sur- 
prise to  the  minister— has  to  do  with  a  lack 
of  specificity  in  the  certificate  of  approval, 
when  I  have  in  my  hand  every  certificate  of 
approval  made  out  for  Walker's  quarry  in 
the  last  decade,  and  plainly  these  state  that 
95  per  cent  is  to  be  solid  waste  and  the 
other  five  per  cent  construction  debris? 

Liquid  waste  was  never  permitted  in 
Walker's  quarry  by  any  certificate  of  ap- 
proval, yet  the  minister  included  that  as  a 
liquid  waste  receiving  place  in  his  letter  of 
1978  and  now  professes  surprise.  Why  does 
the  minister  not  admit  that  he  does  not 
know  what  is  happening  in  his  ministry  and 
it  has  to  be  cleaned  out  from  top  to  bottom, 
starting  with  himself? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  If  I  were  going  to  send 
someone  to  a  recycling  location,  I  think  I 
would  start  with  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion. 


Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  You  might  have  diffi- 
culty getting  a  certificate  of  acceptance. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  agree  it  might  be 
difficult    to    get   a   certificate    of   acceptance. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  be  more  serious 
about  this.  I  think  the  whole  matter  of  what 
was  in  that  site  is  certainly  worthy  of  a  full 
investigation.  I  will  continue  to  report  to 
this  House  on  our  findings.  If  there  was  a 
violation  of  the  certificate,  prosecutions  will 
be  held;  if  not,  the  company  has  the  right, 
and  I  think  it  is  an  important  right,  to  an 
assurance  that  no  one  is  found  guilty  until 
a  fair  trial  is  held.  If  the  company  was  in 
total  compliance  with  the  certificate,  the 
world  will  know  and  I  will  be  the  first  to 
tell  it. 

Mr.  Swart:  Does  the  minister  not  realize 
that  the  opposition  to  the  solidification  plant 
does  not  come  just  from  the  not-wanting-it- 
in-our-<backyard  syndrome?  It  is  because  the 
people  and  the  opposition  members  do  not 
trust  the  minister's  ministry  nor  do  they 
trust  Walker  Brothers.  The  minister's  own 
engineer  in  the  Niagara  area  said  his  faith 
and  trust  in  Walker  Brothers  has  completely 
gone  down  the  drain.  The  minister  has  stated 
that  he  will  lay  charges. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  a  question  there? 

Mr.  Swart:  May  I  ask  the  minister,  if 
charges  are  laid  and  a  conviction  is  made, 
will  he  then  suspend  for  all  time  the  pro- 
cedures for  the  establishment  of  the  solidi- 
fication plant  with  Walker  Brothers  because 
they  are  untrustworthy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  will  do  it  quite 
differently  from  the  way  of  the  honourable 
member  who  asked  the  question.  I  will  do 
it  after  the  trial,  not  before,  and  I  will  base 
it  on  solid,  positive  evidence.  I  read  from 
the  committee's  report:  "The  final  r~ com- 
mendation of  this  committee  is  one  of  high 
importance,  and  that  is,  the  committee  be- 
lieves that  the  public  hearing  should  be 
mandatory." 

I  do  not  know  of  any  party  that  was  more 
insistent  that  the  hearing  process  be  held 
than  the  member's  party.  Fair  enough;  I 
agree  with  that.  But  in  this  instance,  be- 
cause it  seemed  politically  expedient  to  do 
so,  there  was  never  an  opportunity  to  put 
on  the  record  at  a  fair  environmental  assess- 
ment hearing  both  the  pros  and  the  cons. 
That  was  sidestepped;  it  was  short-circuited. 
I  think  it  is  a  miscarriage  of  justice  that  the 
opportunity  to  put  all  the  facts  on  the 
record  and  then  make  a  decision  was  not 
given  in  this  province. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4219 


REST  HOMES 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  for 
the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices on  the  subject  of  rest  homes  in  Ontario. 

Given  the  recommendations  of  the  1977 
coroner's  jury  arising  from  a  death  at  Dr. 
Rajovic's  rest  home  in  Metro  Toronto  and 
given  that  the  Ontario  Advisory  Council  on 
Senior  Citizens  in  April  1978  called  for  im- 
mediate action  to  ensure  proper  standards 
in  rest  homes— and  he  has  had  seven?  1 
requests  from  that  council— and  given  that 
the  minister  spoke  in  the  estimates  on  the 
bill  introduced  by  the  member  for  Sarnia 
(Mr.  Blundy),  as  I  recall,  in  favour  of  im- 
proved regulation  and  said  he  is  studying 
the  matter,  can  he  explain  how  it  is  that  the 
Dr.  Rajovics  of  this  world  can  continue  to 
operate  in  conditions  that  were  so  graphi- 
cally described  in  the  Toronto  Star  recently? 

Given  the  fact  that  our  elderly  people  are 
being  kept  in  such  conditions  of  filth  and 
squalor  in  1980  in  the  province,  will  the 
minister  pass  some  kind  of  law  in  Ontario 
that  would  oblige  municipalities  to  set  prop- 
er standards,  or  is  he  going  to  continue  to 
rely  on  the  individual  municipalities  to  some- 
how clean  up  the  situation  by  themselves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  indicated,  he 
obviously  recognizes  that  municipalities  do 
have  very  significant  authority  to  ensure 
appropriate  standards  in  terms  of  health 
care,  fire  safety  and  other  kinds  of  safety 
in  such  residential  accommodation.  In  terms 
of  those  aspects  of  the  care,  it  would  be 
perhaps  unwise  for  the  province  to  attempt 
to  duplicate  the  authority  the  municipalities 
already  have. 

If  these  kinds  of  conditions  do  exist  as  the 
member  described  them— and  I  think  many 
exaggerations  are  being  made  these  days; 
nevertheless  I  am  willing  to  acknowledge 
there  may  be  cases  where  less  than  adequate 
conditions  prevail— then  I  think  the  munic- 
ipalities ought  to  be  moving  into  those  situa- 
tions and1  doing  something  about  them. 

It  is  not  good  enough  to  sit  back  and 
simply  say  another  level  of  government 
should  come  in,  especially  when  we  are  talk- 
ing about  major  municipalities;  I  can  under- 
stand some  of  the  smaller  municipalities 
might  have  some  difficulty  because  of  the 
lack  of  appropriate  staff  to  inspect,  but  our 
major  municipalities  clearly  have  that  capacity 
and  ought  to  be  doing  it. 

With  respect  to  the  member's  reference  to 
standards,  I  have  indicated  that  my  col- 
leagues and?  I  are  looking  at  ways  in  which 


we  might  assist.  I  do  not  think  we  will  be 
getting  into  passing  province-wide  legisla- 
tion and  regulation  of  each  and  every  one  of 
the  boarding  homes  and  lodging  homes  in 
this  province  because,  frankly,  we  do  not 
have  the  capacity  to  inspect  on  that  basis 
across  the  province.  However,  what  I  sug- 
gest we  may  well  look  at  is  the  possibility  of 
providing  guidelines  for  the  municipalities  or, 
if  the  member  wishes,  model  proposals  for 
the  municipalities  so  that  they  might  follow 
through  with  their  responsibility. 

2:50  p.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Will  the  minister  admit  that, 
with  all  his  guidelines,  suggestions,  construc- 
tive statements  and  so  on,  we  still  have  be- 
tween 50,000  and  90,000  people  in  rest  home 
beds  in  Ontario?  There  is  considerable  diffi- 
culty in  finding  nursing-home  accommodation, 
especially  when  more  than  a  small  amount  of 
nursing  care  is  required. 

Given  that  more  and  more  people  seem  to 
be  lining  up  for  these  rest  homes,  will  the 
minister  admit  he  has  a  responsibility  to 
oblige  the  municipalities  to  act,  and  not 
merely  to  suggest  they  act?  Does  he  not 
have  a  responsibility  to  set  certain  standards 
and  say  that  the  municipalities  have  the  duty 
to  enforce  those  standards,  and  if  they  don't 
enforce  them  the  province  will  take  certain 
actions  against  them? 

Surely  the  minister  cannot  just  sit  there 
and  wash  his  hands  of  the  squalor  and  the 
despicable  circumstances  in  which  many  of 
our  elderly  are  now  living. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  was  not  simply  wash- 
ing my  hands  of  the  situation.  The  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  has  to  bear  in  mind  that 
the  municipalities,  as  well  as  the  provincial 
government,  are  duly  elected  and  responsible 
levels  of  government.  I  certainly  will  con- 
tinue to  do  whatever  I  can  to  encourage 
them  and  press  them  to  take  action  in  those 
kinds  of  situations. 

Mr.  Warner:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  government  was  forced  to  bring  in  a 
Nursing  Home  Act  prior  to  1972  because  of 
the  deplorable  state  of  nursing  homes  in  this 
province.  In  view  of  this,  how  big  a  mess 
must  be  created,  how  much  must  we  learn  in 
this  Legislature  about  the  deplorable  condi- 
tions in  rest  homes  before  this  government 
will  act  to  bring  a  rest  homes  act  into  the 
province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  that  question  was  intended  to  elicit  an 
answer.  It  was  a  histrionic  statement  based 
upon  information  the  honourable  member  is 
using  in  what  I  think  is  an  alarmist  way. 


4220 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


STRATFORD  FESTIVAL 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question,  to  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Rec- 
reation, about  the  turmoil  in  the  Stratford 
Festival  Theatre,  a  theatre  that  is  receiving 
a  grant  of  $300,000  this  year  from  the  tax- 
payers of  Ontario  through  the  Ontario  Arts 
Council. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  the  board  of 
directors  recently  told  the  four  Canadians 
who  had  been  hired  to  run  next  year's  season 
they  were  being  fired  because,  it  said,  their 
program  would  incur  a  deficit  of  $1  million, 
which  was  unacceptable? 

Is  the  minister  also  aware  that,  just  days 
earlier,  the  same  board  of  directors  was  mak- 
ing a  submission  to  the  Canada  Council— 
which  was  signed  by  the  president,  Mr. 
Hicks,  by  the  treasurer,  Mr.  Thomas,  and  by 
the  newly  appointed  executive  director,  Mr. 
Stevens— that  indicated  they  intended  to  have 
the  season,  that  the  plan  would  have  to  run 
on  a  balanced  budget  and  would  do  so? 

Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  contradiction 
between  what  the  board  of  directors  told 
those  four  Canadians  who  were  being  fired 
and  what  they  were  telling  the  Canada 
Council? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  been 
following  the  events  of  Stratford  very  closely 
over  the  last  few  weeks  and,  to  paraphrase 
a  line  from  Shakespeare,  "Methinks  there  is 
something  rotten  in  the  state  of  Stratford." 

I  am  very  perplexed  and,  I  must  admit, 
annoyed,  as  is  my  federal  colleague,  because 
both  the  federal  agency,  the  Canada  Coun- 
cil, and  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  have  been 
supporting  the  theatre  in  Stratford  at  a  very 
substantial  level.  Fortunately  over  the  last 
few  years  Stratford  has  been  able  to  raise 
a  great  deal  of  its  money  through  the  box 
office.  This  has  been  successful  to  the  point 
where  now,  between  the  Canada  Council  and 
the  Ontario  Arts  Council,  we  are  probably 
financing  only  about  12  to  15  per  cent  of 
the  total  budget.  Nevertheless,  the  theatre 
people  at  Stratford  seem  to  know  very  well 
where  to  run  and  where  to  ask  for  help  when 
they  need  it  when  they  run  into  deficit 
situations. 

I  must  say  I  am  sufficiently  perplexed 
about  what  is  happening  there,  the  termina- 
tion of  the  contracts  of  these  four  Canadians 
and  the  hiring  of  Mr.  Dexter,  that  I  am  ask- 
ing the  chairman  of  the  Ontario  Arts  Coun- 
cil—who is,  after  all,  the  person  from  Ontario 
who  should  be  dealing  with  Stratford  directly; 
we  do  not  deal  directly  with  Stratford— to 
take    a    serious    look    at    Stratford    and    see 


whether  in  the  light  of  actions  like  these  the 
Ontario  Arts  Council  should  continue  to 
finance  that  at  a  level  of  about  $310,000  a 
year,  as  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  has 
indicated. 

That  is,  of  course,  only  the  annual  grant 
that  Stratford  gets.  In  addition  to  that,  we 
have  undertaken  to  pay  up  to  $2,900,000  for 
Stratford  under  the  arts  challenge  fund.  We 
have  given  Stratford  all  kinds  of  ad  hoc 
grants  over  the  years;  we  have  tried  to  sup- 
port them,  again  at  arm's  length. 

In  response  to  the  question,  it  seems  to  me 
that  in  the  light  of  what  has  happened  in  the 
last  few  weeks,  which  is  really  something  that 
is  astonishing,  regrettable,  and  something  I 
deplore,  the  time  may  have  arrived  for  the 
Ontario  Arts  Council  to  take  a  very  serious 
look  at  whether  the  taxpayers  of  this  province 
should  continue  their  annual  support  of  that 
theatre. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  response  took  three 
minutes  and  30  seconds.  I  wish  the  minister 
would  be  a  little  bit  crisper. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  proposal  of  the 
minister  would  punish  Stratford  for  what 
they  have  done  in  firing  the  four  Canadians, 
letting  them  go  and  bringing  a  foreign  direc- 
tor in,  but  would  not  cure  the  problem  of 
incompetence  or  deviousness  that  is  now 
found  in  the  Stratford  Festival  board  of 
directors,  will  the  government  be  making 
representations  to  Mr.  Axworthy  and  to  the 
Stratford  Festival  board  to  ensure  that  the 
artistic  direction  at  Stratford  be  in  the  hinds 
of  Canadians  rather  than  those  of  a  continu- 
ing series  of  people  who,  however  qualified, 
come  in  from  other  countries? 

Will  the  government  also  be  seeking  to 
ensure  that,  if  Ontario  taxpayers'  funds  con- 
tinue to  go  to  Stratford,  in  future  there  will 
be  a  representative  of  the  arts  council  or  the 
people  of  Ontario  put  on  the  board  of 
directors  to  avoid  the  kind  of  devious  be- 
haviour we  have  seen  in  recent  weeks? 

Hon.  Mr.  Raetz:  Again,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
will  be  very  brief.  That  was  a  long  question. 
As  I  indicated  a  moment  ago,  I  will  not, 
and  our  government  will  not,  make  a  direct 
contact  with  Stratford.  I  will  ask  the  chair- 
man of  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  to  look 
into  these  things  and  report  back  to  us.  I 
will  certainly  not  take  the  kind  of  direct 
steps  that  I  think  have  been  suggested  and 
were  implicit  in  that  question. 

DAY  CARE 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion   for    the    Minister    of    Community    and 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4221 


Social  Services  which  relates  to  the  day 
care  needs  of  people  in  the  Ottawa-Carleton 
region,  particularly  in  the  municipalities  of 
Nepean  and  Kanata  where  certain  political 
events  are  taking  place. 

Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  fact  that, 
despite  60  per  cent  of  the  women  with 
children  in  the  Carleton  constituency  area 
being  at  work,  private  day  care  centres  in 
that  area  are  seeing  their  waiting  lists  shrink 
because  people  with  family  incomes  of  more 
than  $17,000  cannot  afford  even  low-cost, 
privately  run  day  cire  centres?  Does  the 
government  have  any  plan  to  ensure  adequate 
day  care  for  these  families,  or  does  the 
government  intend  to  stand  by  until  those 
private  day  care  centres  have  no  choice 
but  to  fold? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  unless  I 
missed  something  at  the  beginning  of  that 
question,  it  is  not  clear  to  me  how  the 
honourable  member  drew  the  cause-and-effect 
relationship  in  terms  of  the  reduction  in 
waiting  lists,  as  I  believe  he  said.  That  may 
be  his  conclusion  and  it  may  be  correct,  I 
do  not  know,  but  before  I  would  agree 
with  that  conclusion  I  would  have  to  ex- 
amine the  data  which  led  him  to  come  to  that 
conclusion. 

3  p.m. 

Nevertheless,  as  I  have  indicated  on  a 
number  of  occasions,  within  the  next  short 
time— in  a  very  few  weeks— a  series  of  an- 
nouncements will  be  made  relating  to  the 
initiatives  on  the  part  of  this  government  in 
the  area  of  day  care.  I  might  add,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  honourable  member,  that  these 
initiatives  have  been  in  the  planning  stage 
for  a  lengthy  period  of  time.  I  want  to 
assure  him  they  bear  no  relationship  to  the 
current  controversy  that  exists  around  the 
issue  of  day  dare  but  are  the  result  of 
deliberate  and  competent  planning  on  the 
part  of  this  government. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Can  the  minister  assure  the 
House  that  not  only  will  there  be  an  expan- 
sion of  day  care  to  meet  the  needs  in  the 
Ottawa-Carleton  region  but  also  the  tradi- 
tional funding  of  the  government  will  be 
maintained?  Will  he  assure  the  House  that 
the  funding  of  the  $171,000  recently  given 
to  the  region  of  Ottawa-Carleton  for  day 
care  purposes  will  not  be  repeated,  since 
that  funding  involved  only  $15,300  coming 
directly  from  the  province,  with  the  remain- 
der coming  from  either  federal  sources  or 
the  local  municipalities?  Will  the  govern- 
ment  assure   us   that  in   future   Ontario   will 


not  back  out  on  its  responsibilities  to  day 
care  the  way  it  did  with  that  $171,000 
grant,  where  it  paid  less  than  10  per  cent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  With  respect  to  that 
particular  grant,  I  think  the  honourable  mem- 
ber ought  to  bear  in  mind  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  became  necessary.  Again,  it 
related  to  the  particular  land  of  administra- 
tion that  was  being  carried  on  in  that  region, 
as  it  was  in  Metropolitan  Toronto.  I  cannot 
assure  the  member  or  any  municipality  in 
this  province  of  that.  If  they  do  not  manage 
their  own  houses  appropriately  within  then- 
budgets  during  a  given  fiscal  year,  I  cannot 
assure  them  they  can  have  open-ended  rights 
to  spend  money  and  expect  me  to  come  up 
with  80  per  cent— albeit  50  per  cent  federal 
and  30  per  cent  provincial— to  subsidize  them 
if  they  are  not  going  to  manage  their  budget 
programs  appropriately. 

I  would  ask  the  member  to  consider  that 
it  has  been  acknowledged  by  both  Metro- 
politan Toronto  and  Ottawa-Carleton,  know- 
ing the  circumstances  under  which  those 
projected  deficits  arose  this  year,  that  the 
province  has  been  very  generous  with  them 
in  assisting  them  out  of  those  situations. 

With  respect  to  the  other  guarantees  the 
member  requested  of  me,  I  can  only  ask  that 
he  be  patient  and  wait  for  the  announcements 
in  the  next  few  weeks. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  wonder  if  the  minister  is  aware  that  even 
in  low-cost,  private  day  care  service  centres, 
such  as  the  Bay  shore  centre  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton,  the  waiting  list  is  dropping  from 
the  normal  50  to  60  parents  looking  for 
spaces  to  about  10  parents,  although  the  in- 
quiries about  day  care  services  continue  to 
come  in  at  the  same  rate.  According  to  the 
director  of  that  centre,  this  is  because  parents 
whose  family  income  is  slightly  more  than 
$17,000  simply  cannot  afford  to  contemplate 
looking  for  day  care  services  for  their  kids. 

Is  the  minister  going  to  wait  until  these 
centres  close  and  use  that  as  proof  that  the 
day  care  need  does  not  exist?  This  is  the 
kind  of  approach  he  has  taken  in  the  past. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
never  taken  that  approach. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Yes,  you  have.  What  were 
your  speeches  about  recently? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  would  ask  the  honour- 
able member  to  remain  calm  for  just  a 
moment.  I  would  remind  her  also,  by  the 
way,  she  has  not  raised  yet  in  the  House  the 
issue  she  took  me  on  about  a  while  ago  in 
terms   of  those  subsidies.   I   think  since  she 


4222 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


received    that   report   from   Ottawa-Carleton 
she  realizes  I  was  correct. 

Ms.  Cigantes:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege:  I  want  to  make  reference  to  the 
fact  that  I  have  not  raised  again  a  question 
which  I  raised  twice  in  this  House  and  which 
the  minister  has  not  chosen  to  answer.  I 
would  like  the  minister  to  get  up  and  tell  us 
what  documentary  evidence  he  has— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  That  is  not  a  point  of 
privilege;  that  is  correcting  the  record.  The 
honourable  minister  will  complete  his  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Perhaps  in  response  to 
the  request  from  the  honourable  member  I 
could  point  out  to  her  the  report  which  I 
am  sure  she  has  received  from  some  of  her 
friends  on  the  Ottawa  council.  I  will  stand 
by  my  original  information,  because  that  re- 
port bore  me  out  and  demonstrated  my 
figures  were  quite  correct.  I  have  nothing  to 
add  to  my  original  remarks,  because  they 
were  borne  out  by  that  report. 

Ms.  Cigantes:  Where  is  the  report?  Table 
it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Did  the  member  say, 
'Table  it"?  It  is  not  my  report  to  table.  Why 
does  the  member  not  table  her  copy?  She 
has  seen  the  report. 

I  have  forgotten  what  the  honourable 
member's  original  question  was,  as  a  matter 
of  fact. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Ottawa 
East  with  a  new  question. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  it  safe? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  In  spite  of  all  the 
histrionics,  the  member  for  Ottawa  East  still 
has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  can  assure  the  minister  I  have 
no  intention  of  leaving— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  have  a  question? 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have.  You 
will  agree  there  has  been  some  disturbance 
here. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  REFORM 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence  of 
the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  and  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  I  would  like  to  ask 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs.  My  question  to  the  minister  in- 
volves his  colleague's  comments  in  Montreal 
yesterday  before  the  Chambre  de  Commerce. 
If  I  may  quote  briefly  from  his  speech,  he 


said  those  "who  curse  the  darkness,  especi- 
ally with  inaccuracies  that  cannot  but  mis- 
lead, do  not  serve  .  .  .  Canada.  Instead,  they 
serve  a  vile,  hateful  and  mean-spirited  ap- 
proach based  on  self-interest  and  selfishness." 

Considering  that  the  Attorney  General  was 
talking  about  the  comment  made  by  a  Con- 
servative colleague,  the  Premier  of  New 
Brunswick,  what  steps  does  the  minister  in- 
tend to  take  to  correct  the  inaccuracies  in 
his  colleague's  pamphlet  in  Carleton  which 
states  that  the  Premier,  "Bill  Davis  prevented 
the  federal  government  from  putting  forward 
what  is  called  blanket  bilingual  policy  in  fa- 
vour of  Ontario,"  and  secondly,  "the  leader  of 
the  Liberal  Party  in  Ontario  favours  official 
bilingualism  for  Ontario,"  both  of  which  are 
clearly  inaccurate?  Is  the  minister  going  to 
ask  him  to  correct  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  correct 
the  record,  my  colleague  the  Attorney  General 
did  not  use  those  words  that  were  attributed 
to  him  by  my  friend.  The  Globe  and  Mail's 
Stan  Oziewicz,  who  was  there,  indicates  he 
did  not  use  those  words  in  his  speech. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  have  his  speech  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  He  can  answer  that.  The 
answer  to  the  member's  other  question  is  that 
the  inclusion  or  non-inclusion  of  section  133 
in  the  Canadian  charter  of  rights  in  the  pack- 
age that  is  now  before  the  House  of  Com- 
mons would  have  provided  for  bilingual  laws 
in  this  Legislature,  in  other  words,  all  the 
work  of  this  Legislature,  including  acts  be- 
ing passed  in  both  English  and  French  with 
both  versions  having  official  validity,  and  a 
full  court  system— not  only  criminal  courts, 
as  we  are  in  favour  of,  but  also  civil  courts- 
being  completely  bilingual  in  this  province. 
These  were  the  things  suggested  for  the 
charter  of  rights  by  the  federal  government 
at  some  time  which  we  said  were  not  ac- 
ceptable in  this  province. 

Mr.  Roy:  That's  not  what  you  say. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  It  is  what  we  say,  because 
the  implementation  of  those  things  would 
have  gone  a  long  way  towards  an  official 
bilingual  Ontario  policy,  which  we  are  not 
for.  At  different  times  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith)  has  indicated  he 
was  in  favour  of  a  bilingual  Ontario.  If  he 
wishes  to  correct  the  record,  that  is  fine,  but 
it  is  my  understanding  that  at  other  times 
and  in  other  places  my  friend,  and  some 
members  of  his  party  anyway,  have  been  in 
favour  of  officially  declaring  Ontario  bilingual 
as  the  federal  government  has  declared. 
3:10  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4223 


All  we  have  said  is  that  the  record  of  what 
we  have  done  in  this  province  for  the  franco- 
phones is  a  commendable  record.  That  record 
has  been  done  without  the  kind  of  tokenism 
of  declaring  Ontario  officially  bilingual, 
which  is  not  needed  to  achieve  the  kinds  of 
ends  that  need  to  be  achieved  in  this  prov- 
ince. The  record  in  the  school  system,  the 
courts,  and  in  dealing  with  governments  and 
so  forth  speaks  for  itself. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  will  not  criticize  the  govern- 
ment's record,  which  is  not  part  of  my  ques- 
tion. Does  the  minister  not  think  one  of  the 
reasons  that  he  and  his  colleague  the  Attorney 
General  have  such  difficulty  and  the  govern- 
ment lacks  such  credibility  at  the  national 
level  is  that  each  and  every  time  they  feel  it 
is  publicly  advantageous,  whether  it  is  the 
Carleton  by-election  or  the  1975  general 
election,  they  try  to  stir  up  the  anti-French 
vote? 

Why  else  would  their  candidate  use  about 
half  of  his  pamphlet  just  talking  about  gross 
distortion  of  our  policy  and  the  federal  poli- 
cies? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  If  it  is  gross  distortion  of 
the  Liberal  Party  policy,  I  ask  the  member  to 
stand  up  now  and  tell  this  House  that  their 
policy  is  not  for  an  officially  bilingual  On- 
tario. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would1  ask  this 
of  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs: 
Given  the  importance  of  the  question  of 
French-English  relations  in  Canada,  and 
given  the  fact  that  this  House  by  a  solemn 
and  unanimous  resolution  in  May  at  the  time 
of  our  constitutional  debate,  just  before  Que- 
bec went  to  the  referendum,  acknowledged 
that  the  status  quo  is  unacceptable,  that  it 
had  to  be  changed  and  clearly  that  some  con- 
cessions had  to  be  made  in  this  province  with 
respect  to  French  Canadians  because  of  the 
concerns  that  have  been  raised  for  so  many 
years  in  Quebec,  will  the  minister  undertake 
on  behalf  of  the  government  to  stop  fudging 
the  issues  the  way  the  government  seems  to 
be  so  anxious  to  do  right  now? 

Will  he  make  it  quite  clear  that  adoption 
of  section  133  for  this  province  would  mean 
the  recognition  of  French  in  the  Legislature, 
as  it  is  recognized  now,  and  the  translation 
of  our  statutes  in  Ontario,  as  is  taking  place 
at  this  moment,  as  well  as  guaranteeing  the 
use  of  French  in  the  courts  of  Ontario,  some- 
thing that  has  also  been  accepted  by  the  gov- 
ernment and  now  is  spreading  across  the 
province  on  a  planned  basis? 

Since  that  and  that  alone  is  what  was  in- 
volved with  section  133,  will  the  government 


stop  trying  to  pretend  that  concession,  which 
would  be  very  real  in  the  symbolic  sense  for 
Franco-Ontarians,  for  the  French  Canadians 
across  Canada  and  for  the  Quebecois,  is  quite 
different  from  what  the  government  seems  to 
be  pretending— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  has  been  asked, 
surely. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Why  can  they  not  be  clear 
and  why  can  they  not  give  that  answer- 
Mr.  Speaker:  That  has  been  asked. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —which  is  so  important  for 
the  future  of  Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Let  me  answer  by  saying 
that  there  are  obviously  differences  of  opinion 
between  those  on  that  side  and  we  on  this 
side.  The  kind  of  progress  we  have  seen, 
which  we  have  been  able  to  accomplish  in 
this  province  without  taking  the  kind  of 
tokenism  that  adoption  of  133  would*  mean  at 
this  time,  speaks  for  itself. 

This  government  takes  no  back  seat  to 
anyone  in  providing  services  for  our  Franco- 
Ontarian  population.  That  is  an  accepted  fact. 
But  it  is  also  an  accepted  fact  that  kind  of 
progress  would  be  seriously  impeded  by 
taking  the  kind  of  steps  the  member  has  sug- 
gested. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  I  made 
a  formal  request  on  Tuesday  to  Mr.  John 
Cowan,  the  treasurer  of  Walker  Brothers, 
to  see  the  uncovered  drums  and  get  a  sample 
of  the  liquid  for  an  independent  analysis. 
Will  the  minister  explain  why  the  reply  from 
Mr.  Cowan,  after  a  top-level,  15-minute  meet- 
ing—and perhaps  a  phone  call  to  the  minister; 
I  do  not  know— was  that  I  would  not  be 
permitted  to  view  the  site  or  get  samples  un- 
less the  minister  gave  permission?  Does  he 
not  think  this  indicates  Walker  Brothers  has 
something  to  hide?  What  is  his  cosy  relation- 
ship in  this  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
member  had  better  address  that  question  to 
his  constituent.  If  he  wants  on  the  site  I 
am  sure  if  he  is  there  for  noble  ends  they 
will  be  more  than  pleased  to  accommodate 
him.  We  will  give  him  the  results  of  the 
test;  of  course  we  will. 

Mr.  Swart:  Would  the  minister  have  no 
objection  to  a  representative  of  the  citizens* 
committee  or  the  city  council  or  myself  be- 
ing there  at  all  times  when  digs  are  taking 
place  to  take  samples  out  of  the  drums  so  we 


4224 


{LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


can  have  an  independent  analysis?  There  is 
no  trust  left  in  his  ministry. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  the  member 
misses  one  very  significant  point.  The  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
—the  representatives  who  should  be  there, 
who  are  there  and  who  will  supervise  that  site 
—are  his  civil  servants  just  as  much  as  they 
are  mine.  He  seems  to  have  missed  that  point. 
They  are  there  to  protect  the  people  of  this 
province  and  they  happen  to  be  doing  it. 
I  was  at  the  reception  last  night  for  the 
International  Joint  Commission.  It  is  rather 
interesting  to  hear  an  outside  perspective  of 
what  a  fine  job  the  officials  of  this  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  are  doing  in  the  province. 

COMMUNITY  SERVICES 
CONTRIBUTION  PROGRAM 

Mr.  J.  Johnson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Housing.  Scveral 
small  communities  in  my  riding  will  be 
drastically  affected  by  the  change  in  federal 
policy  relating  to  the  community  services 
contribution  program.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I 
have  one  community  that  received  $1  mil- 
lion, the  village  of  Elora,  and  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  put  in  $1.6 
million.  It  was  only  because  of  the  involve- 
ment of  the  two  governments- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  a  question  there? 
Mr.  J.  Johnson:  Yes,  sir.  The  question  is, 
will  these  municipalities  be  allowed  to  pro- 
ceed with  projects,  especially  the  water  and 
sewage  projects,  in  view  of  the  change  in 
policy  of  the  federal  government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  any  pro- 
gram or  project  by  a  municipality  which 
now  has  approval,  both  by  my  ministry  and 
by  Canada  Mortgage  and  Housing  Corpo- 
ration, to  be  funded  under  the  terms  of 
reference  of  the  program  for  1980,  will  ad- 
vance to  its  conclusion  provided  all  funds 
for  that  project  are  drawn  down  by  March 
31,  1982. 

As  to  any  projects  or  programs  that  are 
being  applied  for  in  the  current  year  that 
have  not  had  our  approval,  either  at  the 
federal  or  provincial  level— being  applied  for 
by  various  municipalities  across  the  province, 
represented  by  all  parti  s  of  this  Legislature 
—they  are  not  going  to  be  approved  at  this 
time  because  of  lack  of  funding  as  a  result 
of  the  turnebwn  of  the  CSCP. 

At  March  31,  1982,  we  anticipate  we  will 
have  most  of  the  programs  with  their  total 
entitlement  of  funds  drawn  down. 


LAND  SEVERANCE 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food.  Can  the  minister  explain  why  an 
order  in  council  was  issued  on  his  advice 
on  July  31,  1980,  to  grant  a  severance  on 
agricultural  land  in  Vespra  township  to  a 
Gordon  Atkinson  which  overturned  an 
Ontario  Municipal  Board  decision  and  which 
went  against  the  township  official  plan?  What 
reason  did  the  minister  and  the  cabinet 
have  for  overturning  the  OMB  decision  other 
than  the  fact  that  Mr.  Atkinson  was  a  fund- 
raiser for  the  Conservative  member  for  Sim- 
coe  Centre  (Mr.  G.  Taylor)? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sure  the  honourable  member  is  aware  that 
I  have  many  orders  in  council.  I  will  take 
his  question  as  notice  and  return  with  a 
response. 

3:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  would  like  to  be  able  to 
ask  the  minister  where  his  commitment  is  to 
agriculture  and  just  sit  down,  but  I  will  not. 
I  will  go  on. 

What  purpose  is  there  in  a  municipality's 
creating  an  official  plan  and  having  it  ap- 
proved by  the  ministry  over  there  if  it  can 
be  ignored  by  the  government  and,  if  the 
minister  felt  so  compelled  to  support  this 
severance,  why  did  he  not  do  so  at  the 
hearings  before  the  OMB?  Does  the  minister 
not  agree  that  this  kind  of  political  decision 
by  the  government  makes  a  mockery  of  the 
planning  process  and  of  his  foodland  guide- 
lines to  preserve  agricultural  land?  Where 
is  his  commitment  to  his  foodland  guide- 
lines? 

Interjections. 

Mr.     Speaker:     Order. 

MINIMUM  WAGE 

Mr.  Samis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  very  simple  ques- 
tion: Can  the  minister  explain  to  the  people 
in  this  province  whv  we  have  the  lowest 
minimum  wage  in  all  of  Canada? 
Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  A  new  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Thank  you  very  much 
for  giving  me  the  opportunity  not  to  an- 
swer, Mr.  Speaker,  but  the  member  has 
asked  about  minimum  wage.  I  have  indi- 
cated to  him  on  previous  occasions  that  the 
matter  was  under  active  review.  He  is  not 
unaware  of  the  fact  that  the  Institute  for 
Research  on  Public  Policy  has  recently  come 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4225 


out  condemning  minimum  wage.  Certainly 
that  has  given  the  government  reason  to 
review  it  very  carefully  and  we  are  actively 
reviewing  it  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.    Samis:    Can    the    minister    explain    to 
the   House- 
Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  members  who 
are  interjecting  are  the  ones  who  claim 
they  cannot  get  on  the  question  period.  It 
is   no   wonder  why. 

Mr.  Samis:  Good  advice,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Can  the  minister  explain  to  the  House 
why  there  has  been  no  increase  whatsoever 
in  the  minimum  wage  in  22  months,  and 
can  he  give  some  assurance  to  the  working 
poor  of  this  province  that  there  will  be  at 
least  some  increase  before  January  1,  1981? 
Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  can  say  nothing  else 
other  than  that  the  matter  is  under  active 
review,  and  I  hope  to  have  the  result  very 
shortly. 

INVESTMENT  COMPANIES'  FAILURE 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations  concerning  the  ongoing  Astra 
Trust  and  Re-Mor  matter:  Can  the  minister 
inform  the  House  if  at  the  time  of  the  Re- 
Mor  application  the  registrar  of  mortgage 
brokers  was  aware  of  the  judge's  comments 
and  the  evidence  tendered  by  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission  in  the  receivership 
application  against  C  and  M? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  fairness, 
I  will  take  that  as  notice  and  report  back 
tomorrow. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  While  he  is  doing  that, 
will  the  minister  table  in  the  House  the  ap- 
plication for  the  Re-Mor  mortgage  brokerage 
licence,  including  all  accompanying  corres- 
pondence, notations  and  comments  from  all 
involved  individuals  and  government  offi- 
cials? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Certainly.  I  hope  to  do  it 
tomorrow,  but  no  later  than  Monday. 

INDUSTRIAL  HEARING  LOSS 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion regarding  industrial  deafness  and,  after 
listening  to  the  member  for  Huron-Middle- 
sex (Mr.  Riddell),  I  think  we  should  apply 
the  rules  here. 

Mr.  Riddell:  You  have  to  shout  to  get 
through  to   those   characters   over  there. 

Mr.  Martel:  In  the  second  annual  report, 
there  is  a  recommendation  regarding  indus- 


trial deafness,  that  the  Minister  of  Labour 
consult  with  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board  to  consider  appointing  an  independent 
committee  of  experts  to  investigate  and  make 
recommendations  to  the  minister  and  the 
board  on  the  basis  of  compensation  for 
noise-induced  hearing  loss.  Has  that  been 
done  yet  and,  if  not,  when  can  we  antici- 
pate such  a  committee  being  established  to 
deal  with  this  serious  problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  by  way 
of  background,  may  I  say  that— 

Mr.  Kerrio:  What  do  you  talk  about  when 
you  are  out  to  dinner  together? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Careful.  I  do  not  want 
to  give  the  member  for  Niagara  Falls  (Mr. 
Kerrio)  a  hearing  loss. 

It  was  due  to  a  conversation  I  had  with 
the  member  for  Sudbury  East  about  indus- 
trial hearing  loss  and  our  mutual  concern 
about  the  problem  that  the  matter  was  re- 
ferred by  me  to  the  Advisory  Council  on 
Occupational  Health  and  Safety  for  some 
views  and  recommendations.  We  have  already 
initiated  one  part  of  its  recommendations, 
namely,  the  standard  with  regard  to  indus- 
trial noise.  We  are  now  awaiting  some  briefs 
on  that,  and  we  will  make  decisions  about 
whether  it  should  stay  as  it  is  or  whether 
to  make  some  changes. 

The  real  issue  the  honourable  member  and 
I  are  concerned  about  in  addition  to  that 
relates  to  compensation  and  rehabilitation.  I 
have  forwarded  the  recommendations  of  the 
advisory  council  to  the  board,  and  I  have 
received  an  initial  response  indicating  it 
would  like  to  wait  until  the  Weiler  report  is 
received.  That  will  be  tabled  next  week.  As 
soon  as  that  is  received,  I  will  have  further 
meetings  with  the  board  to  pursue  the 
matter. 

Mr.  Martel:  With  respect  to  rehabilitation, 
has  anything  been  done  to  date  to  provide 
speech  therapy  for  the  more  than  800 
workers  in  the  Sudbury  area  who  aire  suf- 
fering from  industrial  deafness  and  to  ensure 
there  are  adequate  speech  therapists  trained 
in  the  province  to  meet  the  need,  not  only 
in  the  Sudbury  basin  but  also  across  north- 
ern Ontario,  which  has  the  highest  incidence 
of  severe  deafness  in  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  do  not  have  that  infor- 
mation available.  I  will  take  the  question  as 
notice  and  respond  later. 

BURLINGTON  GAS  EXPLOSION 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 


4226 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


mercial  Relations.  Can  the  minister  tell  the 
House  what  action  his  ministry  is  taking 
pursuant  to  its  responsibilities  for  safety  under 
the  Energy  Act  as  a  result  of  a  natural  gas 
explosion  that  destroyed  a  Burlington  home 
on  September  16? 

Specifically,  will  the  minister  explain  why 
it  took  his  officials  more  than  a  month  to 
obtain  the  report  of  the  Ontario  Research 
Foundation  which  was  completed  at  the  end 
of  September  and  which  concluded  that  a 
plastic  T-joint  had  separated  from  the  pipe- 
line supplying  gas  to  the  Burlington  house? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  get 
the  report  on  that  matter  for  the  honourable 
member. 

Mr.  Bradley:  When  the  minister  obtains 
that  report  and  reports  back  to  the  House, 
will  he  tell  the  House  at  that  time  whether  it 
is  correct  that  30  per  cent  of  these  fittings, 
which  were  tested  by  the  Consumers'  Gas 
Company  at  its  Chatham  laboratory,  have 
failed  to  meet  pressure  specifications  and  that 
AMP  of  Canada  Limited,  the  manufacturer, 
now  makes  fittings  to  higher  specifications? 
If  so,  does  the  minister  not  agree  there  is  a 
problem  of  some  urgency  with  regard  to  the 
old  type  of  fittings  which  have  already  been 
installed?  Will  the  minister  report  back  to 
the  House  on  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  The  honourable  member  is 
asking  a  question  about  the  joints.  If  there 
were  defective  joints,  I  am  sure  the  minister 
would  have  known  about  it  some  time  ago. 

AFFIRMATIVE  ACTION  PROGRAMS 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Labour  on  the  ineffec- 
tiveness of  voluntary  affirmative  action  pro- 
grams even  within  the  government  ministries. 

With  the  women  crown  employees  office 
specifically  charged  with  affirmative  action 
programs  within  the  ministries,  how  can  this 
minister  and  this  government  possibly  con- 
done the  fact  that  over  the  last  four  years 
the  government  spent  almost  double  the 
amount  of  money  on  staff  training  for  men 
than  it  did  for  women  and  that  in  the  past 
year  the  per  capita  expenditure  on  staff  train- 
ing for  men  averaged  $79.56  and  only  $27.38 
for  women,  a  factor  almost  two  thirds  less? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  always 
nice  to  have  the  advantage  of  figures  in  front 
of  one.  As  soon  as  I  have  reviewed  those 
figures  and  can  evaluate  the  real  things  that 
led  to  those  figures,  I  will  be  glad  to  respond 
to  the  member  personally. 


Let  me  tell  my  friend  that  this  govern- 
ment is  very  serious  about  the  affirmative 
action  program  for  women  crown  employees. 
That  program  is  being  reviewed  twice  a  year, 
the  targets  are  being  reviewed  annually  and 
I  sense  a  sincere  commitment  to  it  in  every 
area  of  this  government. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  How  can  the  minister  say 
this  government  is  serious  about  affirmative 
action  for  its  own  employees  when  of  the  40 
per  cent  of  staff  employees  in  Ontario  who 
are  women,  63  per  cent  are  in  the  $9,000  to 
$12,000  bracket  only,  three  per  cent  earn 
even  less  than  $9,000  and  only  five  per  cent 
are  in  the  highest  range  of  $25,000  or  over? 
The  representation  of  women  at  the  director 
level  in  this  past  year  dropped  from  5.3  per 
cent  to  4.9  per  cent.  What  sort  of  seriousness 
is  that? 

3:30  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  The  member  may  like  to 
select  figures,  but  he  knows  from  having 
talked'  to  people  in  my  branch  there  is  no 
doubt  that  changes  are  taking  place.  The 
introduction  of  the  affirmative  action  program 
within  the  government  will,  I  predict,  have 
very  effective  and  meaningful  results. 

SOUTHWESTERN  ONTARIO 
DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism regarding  the  heavy  unemployment  in 
the  Windsor-Essex  county  area  and1  the  need 
for  new  industry.  The  Windsor-Essex  County 
Development  Commission  has  already  ap- 
proached the  minister  and  asked  that  he  set 
up  a  southwestern  Ontario  development  cor- 
poration to  assist  them.  Is  the  minister  con- 
sidering that  and  will  he  be  implementing 
such  a  thing  to  enable  the  community  at 
least  to  provide  substantial  employment  in 
the  near  future? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
think  the  mechanism  of  starting  a  new  de- 
velopment corporation  would  solve  the  prob- 
lem- The  kinds  of  things  we  are  doing  in  con- 
junction with  the  industrial  development 
commission  of  Windsor  and  Essex  are  the 
kinds  of  things  that  will  make  that  happen. 
I  do  not  think  opening  a  new  bureaucracy 
and  setting  up  a  separate  development  cor- 
poration will  solve  the  problem. 

For  example,  the  sorts  of  things  the  United 
Automobile  Workers  in  Canada  proposed 
yesterday  and  some  other  initiatives  we  have 
been  taking  for  a  long  time  and  the  honour- 
able member  has  suggested  on  previous  oc- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4227 


casions    are    the    kinds    of   things    that   will 
bring  new  development  there. 

In  the  event  we  get  an  opportunity  to 
assist  a  firm  that  is  already  in  that  area  or  a 
firm  that  is  thinking  of  moving  into  that  area, 
then  regardless  of  what  programs  are  in  place 
through  the  Ontario  Development  Corpora- 
tion or  the  employment  development  fund,  we 
would  be  flexible  with  either  of  those  pro- 
grams or  any  of  our  programs  to  make  sure 
the  plant  either  located  or  expanded.  So  there 
is  no  problem  in  terms  of  flexibility  or  avail- 
ability of  our  programs. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  In  the  communication  to 
the  minister  dated  October  23  it  specifically 
mentions  that  a  southwestern  Ontario  de- 
velopment corporation  could  expedite  appli- 
cations and  would  be  able  to  provide  exten- 
sive knowledge  to  those  who  may  be  inter- 
ested in  setting  up  industry  in  the  commu- 
nity. Those  are  two  positive  suggestions 
that  the  establishment  of  a  corporation 
would  eventually  provide.  Does  the  minister 
not  think  that  is  important  enough  to  set 
up  such  a  corporation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  would  wonder 
about  that  suggestion  because  we  would 
end  up  with  the  same  people  who  are  now 
there— our  ODC  staff  who  are  working  in 
southwestern  Ontario.  They  are  very  well 
trained  to  understand  the  economy  of  south- 
western Ontario.  They  are  in  a  position  to 
expedite  those  applications  that  must  be  ex- 
pedited. None  of  that  would  change  one  bit 
if  we  told  them  they  would  now  be  working 
for  something  called  the  Southwestern 
Ontario  Development  Corporation  as  opposed 
to  the  Ontario  Development  Corporation. 

KEATING   CHANNEL   DREDGING 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment,  if 
he  will  come  back  to  his  seat. 

My  question  relates  to  the  granting  of  an 
18-month  exemption  from  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  for  the  Keating  Channel 
dredging  in  Toronto.  It  also  concerns  the 
issue  of  a  provisional  certificate  of  approval 
under  the  Environmental  Protection  Act  to 
permit  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  to 
dredge  and  dispose  of  the  dredgeate  in  a 
pond  attached  to  the  Leslie  Street  spit  in 
Toronto. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  Dr.  Donald  Chant, 
chairman  of  the  Premier's  steering  commit- 
tee on  environmental  assessment,  has  advised 
the  Premier  "that  the  issue  of  the  need  for 
dredging  Keating  Channel  remains  unre- 
solved and  that  a—" 


Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  not  a  question  yet. 
All  I  heard  was,  "In  view  of  the  fact  .  .  ." 

Ms.  Bryden:  Let  me  just  conclude  Dr. 
Chants  quote:  "That  the  issue  of  the  need 
for  dredging  Keating  Channel  remains  un- 
resolved and  that  a  hearing  on  this  specific 
issue  should  be  held  as  soon  as  possible 
and   before   any"— 

Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  the  question? 

Ms.  Bryden:  The  question  is,  Mr.  Speaker 
—Dr.  Chant  said  to  request  exemption  be- 
fore any  irrevocable  approvals  are  given. 
Will  the  minister  indicate  whether  he  is 
prepared  to  cancel  the  exemptions  and  cer- 
tificates of  approval  until  an  independent 
inquiry,  such  as  Dr.  Chant  recommends,  is 
held,  or  is  he  going  to  ignore  the  advice  of 
Dr.  Chant,  as  has  been  done  on  many  occa- 
sions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
member  reads  the  letter  in  greater  detail, 
I  think  she  will  find  a  commitment  was 
made.  She  will  notice  the  point  where  it 
says  the  now-defeated  mayor  of  Toronto  has 
a  certain  plan  to  take  care  of  any  flooding. 
Now  that  he  is  not  the  mayor  we  had  better 
consult  with  the  new  mayor  to  see  whether 
the  commitment  to  take  care  of  the  contin- 
gency of  flooding  is  still  valid.  That  is  a 
very  pertinent  point.  That  will  have  to  be 
addressed  in  the  immediate  future. 

MINI-BUDGET 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  for  oral  questions 
has  expired. 

The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 
would  like  to  shed  some  light  on  a  point  of 
privilege  that  was  raised  earlier. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Can  we  hear  it  now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  take  it  that  in  my 
absence  earlier  today,  while  I  was  speaking 
to  some  people  concerned  with  high  tech- 
nology in  the  Ottawa  area,  a  point  was 
raised  here  with  regard  to  an  article  that 
appeared  in  a  prestigious  Italian  newspaper. 
I  was  surprised  when  I  came  to  discover 
that  the  member  opposite,  who  I  know  was 
disappointed  to  see  a  Tory  in  one  of  the 
ethnic  newspapers,  had  made  the  suggestion 
that  I  had  been  directly  quoted  as  giving 
some  information  with  regard  to  the  budget. 

First,  I  would  like  to  say  that  while  I,  like 
many  other  of  my  colleagues,  have  made 
suggestions    to    the    Treasurer    (Mr.    F.    S. 


4228 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Miller),  the  budget  remains  within  his  pur- 
view. I  will  be  here  at  eight  o'clock  tonight 
to  discover  what  will  be  in  the  budget. 

Second,  I  have  had  a  chance  to  receive 
a  translation  of  the  newspaper  article,  and 
my  recollection  of  it  was  confirmed.  Anyone 
reading  the  article  will  see  that  none  of  the 
points  attributed  to  me  by  the  member  op- 
posite is  in  quotation  marks.  They  are  not 
direct  quotations   from   me. 

Third,  the  article  itself  as  translated,  and 
I  have  had  three  Italian  translations,  which 
were  all  translated  the  same  way,  reads  as 
follows  in  the  key  portion:  "The  govern- 
ment is  examining  the  possibility  of  reducing 
sales  tax  since,  declared  Grossman,  it  has 
already  been  demonstrated  other  times  that 
similar  reductions  facilitate  a  revitalization 
of  certain  economic  sectors." 

That  is  exactly  the  same  kind  of  specula- 
tion that  the  Treasurer  himself,  and  others, 
have  made  over  the  last  few  weeks.  It  was 
the  point  of  several  questions  raised  in  this 
House  and  therefore  was  entirely  consistent 
with  everything  else  that  has  been  said  or 
speculated  about  the  budget.  It  does  not 
indicate  any  extraordinary,  unusual  reflec- 
tions upon  the  budget,  nor  any  information, 
which  I  do  not  have,  with  regard  to  the 
budget  to  be  presented  this  evening  and 
which  I  know  the  House  will  enormously 
applaud. 

SPEAKER'S  RULINGS 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege:  Am  I  correct  in  saying  the  Speak- 
er's rulings  on  procedural  affairs  cannot  be 
challenged  at  any  time? 

Mr.  Speaker:  My  rulings  can  be  challenged 
at  any  time  except  in  question  period. 

Mr.  Sargent:  May  I  ask  the  Speaker  how 
many  times  in  the  past  four  years  has  he 
been  before  the  procedural  affairs  com- 
mittee? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Never. 

Mr.  Sargent:  My  point  is  this:  I,  as  one 
member  of  this  Legislature,  do  not  think  that 
one  person  like  the  Speaker  alone  can  decide 
what  should  be  discussed  in  this  Legislature 
for  the  people  of  Ontario.  The  Speaker 
alone  makes  those  decisions,  and  I  very 
much  object  to  those  methods  after  what 
happened  today  with  my  leader  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  awfully  sorry  the 
honourable  member  thinks  that  way.   There 


are  another  123  members  who  have  charged 
me  with  that  responsibility. 

MINI-BUDGET 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  view  of 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism's 
statement,  will  he  give  the  House  an  under- 
taking to  have  the  translation  of  that  article 
typed  up  and  distributed  to  us?  I  am  not  so 
sure  that  I,  as  a  member,  am  prepared  to 
accept  his  explanation  that  he  was  just 
speculating  like  any  other  member  of  the 
public.  I  think  there  is  much  more  to  it 
than  that.  I  would  say  on  my  own  behalf, 
at  least,  that  I  would  like  to  have  that 
translation  and  perhaps  pursue  the  matter 
further. 

3:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:   On  a  point  of  order, 
Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  request  from  the 
honourable  member- 
Mrs.   Campbell:    There   is  nothing  out  of 
order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Oh,  the  new  Speaker. 
Was  it  a  point  of  privilege  the  member  was 
speaking  on  then?  In  view  of  the  request 
by  the  honourable  member  and  in  view  of  the 
translation  the  minister  has  brought  forward, 
I  am  wondering,  if  that  translation  is  satis- 
factory to  all  Italian-speaking  people,  whether 
the  member  for  Bellwoods  should  be  asked  to 
apologize  for  his  translation? 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
intention  whatsover  of  apologizing  to  the 
minister  or  anybody  else  for  such  an  ob- 
vious violation  of  parliamentary  principles  and 
parliamentary  tradition.  I  will  be  moving  a 
motion  at  the  appropriate  time  to  deal  with 
this  matter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  to 
clarify  what  I  said  earlier,  there  were  three 
things  that  I  pointed  out  earlier.  I  am  quite 
satisfied  with  the  three  translations,  but  the 
point  I  wish  to  make  regardless  of  any  inter- 
pretation or  any  translation  anyone  else  wants 
to  make  of  that  article— is  that  there  are  two 
things  that  are  quite  obvious.  First,  the  re- 
marks attributed  to  me  are  not  in  quotation 
marks;  they  are  someone's  reflections.  Second, 
I  say  to  this  House,  quite  openly  and  clearly, 
I  did  not  say  there  were  going  to  be  retail 
sales  tax  cuts.  That  is  a  straight  fact.  There- 
fore, regardless  of  how  anyone  might  have 
translated  it,  my  remarks  made  here  this 
afternoon  may  be  accepted  at  face  value  and 
it  would  be  challenged  regardless  of  the  trans- 
lation. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4229 


Interjections. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 
Mr.  Di  Santo:  On  a  point  of  privilege- 
Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  your  point  of  privi- 
lege? Is  it  the  same  point  of  privilege? 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  As  one 
person  who  can  understand  the  language  in 
which  the  article  was  written,  I  can  tell  the 
House  that  whoever  reads  the  article  gets  a 
clear  indication  that  the  government  is  pro- 
posing two  initiatives:  (1)  to  reduce  sales 
tax  and  (2)  in  favour  of  the  small  industries 
in  Ontario. 

This  is  grave  because  it  can  perturb  the 
market  and  the  citizens  in  their  decisions  as 
to  whether  to  buy  goods.  This  is  a  very 
serious  leak  of  the  budget  responsibility  be- 
cause the  minister  says,  and  it  is  quoted: 
"The  government  is  examining  the  possibility 
of  reducing  sales  tax  .  .  ."  In  other  words, 
the  minister  revealed  what  action  the  gov- 
ernment was  studying.  I  think  my  colleague 
the  member  for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan) 
was  totally  correct.  The  minister  not  only 
should  apologize  but  also  should  resign. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  is  no  motion  of 
any  sort  before  the  House  that  the  Chair 
can  judge  upon.  It  was  raised  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Bellwoods  by  way  of  a  point  of 
privilege— an  alleged  point  of  privilege- 
where  he  seems  to  be  saying  that  something 
reported  to  have  been  said  by  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  is  a  breach  of  his 
privileges.  That  has  not  been  established,  and 
all  I  can  do  is  look  at  the  record  of  what 
other  members  have  said  and  what  the  min- 
ister has  said  by  way  of  clarification.  I  will 
look  at  it  and  see  whether  the  allegations 
are  well-founded  and  whether  there  is  a 
point  of  privilege. 

NOTICE  OF  DISSATISFACTION 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  remind  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House  that  the  member  for  Port 
Arthur  (Mr.  Foulds)  had  stated  he  was  dis- 
satisfied with  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
(Mr.  Parrott).  By  mutual  agreement,  they 
have  decided  the  adjournment  debate  will 
take  place  at  10:30  p.m.,  November  20,  which 
is  next  Thursday. 


LEGISLATIVE  PAGES 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like,  for  the  benefit 
of  all  honourable  members  and  as  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  services  of  our  pages  over  the  last 
five   weeks,   to   read   their   names    into   the 


record  and  the  ridings  from  whence  they 
came. 

Anna  Bayley,  St.  David;  Leanne  Burgin, 
Perth;  Samantha  Cakebread,  Windsor-Walk- 
erville;  Gary  Chazalon,  Middlesex;  Nancy 
Dodds,  Mississauga  North;  Monique  Dull, 
Wilson  Heights;  May  Lynne  Emiry,  Algoma- 
Manitoulin;  Marlynne  Ferguson,  Algoma; 
Michelle  Mackenzie,  Yorkview;  Susan  Olsen, 
Windsor-Sandwich;  Carolyn  Prentice,  Hum- 
ber;  Mary-Beth  Radd'on,  Prince  Edward- 
Lennox;  Kimberley  Roy,  Kitchener;  Dawn 
Stevely,  Hamilton  East;  Eileen  Tucker, 
Armourdale;  Tanya  Underhill,  Elgin;  Susan 
Wall,  Lake  Nipigon;  Vicki  Webster,  Scar- 
borough West;  Beverly  Wilkinson,  Carleton; 
Megan  Winsor,  Mississauga  East;  Stephanie 
Winsor,  Mississauga  East;  Suzanne  Zmenak, 
Lincoln. 

Would  members  please  join  me  in  thanking 
them  for  their  services. 

PETITION 

CONTROL  OF  TIPS 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
petition  signed  by  more  than  270  of  the 
lower-paid  workers  in  our  society,  waiters 
and  waitresses,  protesting  against  the  fact 
that  they  do  not  control  the  tips  that  are 
paid  to  them  in  the  establishments  they  work 
within. 

REPORTS 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
RESOURCES  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Villeneuve  from  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  resources  development  reported 
the  following  resolutions: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  be  granted  to  Her  Majesty 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1981: 

Ministry  administration  program,  $26,338,- 
000;  land  management  program,  $97,162,400; 
outdoor  recreation  program,  $74,805,000;  re- 
source products  program,  $80,950,100;  re- 
source experience  program,  $9,414,800. 

And:  That  supply  in  the  following  supple- 
mentary amount  and  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  be 
granted  to  Her  Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  March  31,  1981: 

Land1  management  program,    $10,000,000. 

And:  That  supply  in  the  following  supple- 
mentary amount  and  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  be 
granted  to  Her  Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  March  31,  1981: 

Land  management  program,  $3,638,000. 


4230 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE 

Mr.  Philip  from  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice  reported  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  be 
granted  to  Her  Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  March  31,  1981: 

Ministry  administration  program,  $5,262,- 
200;  commercial  standards  program,  $11,652,- 
000;  technical  standards  program,  $7,302,900; 
public  entertainment  standards  program, 
$9,744,600;  property  rights  program,  $22,- 
398,000;  registrar  general  program,  $3,397,- 
200;  liquor  licence  program,  $7,056,  500;  res- 
idential tenancy  program,  $5,881,800. 

MOTIONS 

COMMITTEE  SITTING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  select 
committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee 
adjustment  be  authorized  to  sit  this  afternoon. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

COMMITTEE  SUBSTITUTION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  Mr.  Martel  be 
substituted  for  Mr.  Cooke  on  the  select  com- 
mittee on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee 
adjustment. 

Motion  agreed  to. 
3:50  p.m. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Does  it  have  something  to  do 
with  motions? 

Mr.   McCIellan:   Yes.   I  have  a  motion.   I 

give  notice  of  the  following- 
Mr.    Speaker:    Not    under    this    item   you 

can't. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  it  not 
permitted  to  move  motions  at  this  point? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  These  are  government 
motions— routine  motions  dealing  with  the 
business  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  would  ask  your  interpretation  of 
rule  37(c).  Does  the  notice  that  is  spoken 
of  in  that  motion  simply  require  a  filing 
with  the  table  or  does  it  require  oral  notice 
as  well?  My  interpretation  of  37(c)  would 
be  that  the  motion  would  require  notice  and 
oral  notification  and  permission  from  you  in 
writing  as  well  at  this  point  in  time. 


Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  quite  clear  under  the 
rule  that  any  motion  that  is  introduced  under 
that  item  requires  notice. 

Mr.  Foulds:  My  question  then  is,  does  the 
notice  simply  have  to  be  filed  in  writing  or 
should  you  give  oral  notice  at  this  point 
in  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
inform  my  friend  that  usually  these  notices 
appear  on  the  Notice  Paper,  notice  having 
been  given,  and  the  calling  of  those  motions 
is  at  the  discretion  of  the  government  House 
leader. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  colleague 
the  member  for  Bellwoods  has  filed  notice 
with  the  Clerk  of  the  House  for  a  motion 
that  the  matter  he  brought  up  on  a  point  of 
privilege  under  rule  37  be  considered  by  the 
standing    committee    for    procedural    affairs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Obviously  a  private  member's 
motion  such  as  this,  Avhether  it  be  by  way 
of  a  resolution  or  the  introduction  of  a  bill, 
would  be  filed  with  the  Clerk  and  it  would 
appear  on  the  Order  Paper  and  it  would  be 
debated  in  turn  in  the  same  way  as  any 
other  private  member's  motion. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  You  will  excuse  my  con- 
fusion, Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  was  under  the 
impression,  and  I  may  be  wrong,  that  we 
had  the  same  requirement  to  give  notice  of 
motion  as  we  do  to  move  and  briefly  des- 
cribe a  private  member's  bill.  I  simply 
wanted  to  indicate  to  you  pnd  to  the  House 
that  we  intend  to  refer  the  matter  raised 
by  me  earlier  with  respect  to  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism's  remarks  in  Cor- 
riere  Illustrato  to  the  standing  committee  on 
procedural  affairs,  and  the  motion  has  been 
filed  with  the  table  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  review  it,  but  my 
understanding  of  it  is  that  any  motion  pro- 
posed by  a  private  member  will  be  treated 
as  private  member's  business  and  will  be 
handled  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  the  point  of  order,  if  I 
might,  Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  very  much  like 
you  to  review  that,  because  there  is  nothing 
in  rule  37  which  confines  those  motions  to 
the  government  House  leader. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  my  understanding  of 
it  but  I  will  review  it. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

TORONTO  ISLANDS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill   181,   An  Act   to  stay  the  Execution   of 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4231 


Certain  Writs  of  Possession  issued  in  respect 
of  Certain  Premises  on  Toronto  Islands. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

MUNICIPALITY  OF  METROPOLITAN 
TORONTO  AMENDMENT  ACT,  1980 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  182,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipality 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill 
permits  the  Toronto  Transit  Commission  to 
conduct  a  transit  consulting  business  on  a 
self -financing  basis.  We  believe  the  legisla- 
tion will  allow  the  TTC  to  make  an  impor- 
tant contribution  as  a  consulting  partner  in 
Ontario's  efforts  to  obtain  a  share  of  the 
growing  international   urban  transit   market. 

The  bill  will  also  enable  the  Metro  coun- 
cil to  delegate  to  its  staff  the  ability  to  grant 
certain  permits,  approvals  or  authorizations 
and,  in  addition,  the  existing  section  which 
enables  the  Metro  council  to  designate  lanes 
on  Metro  roads  for  the  exclusive  use  of  TTC 
transit  vehicles,  taxis  and  cars  carrying  a 
specified  number  of  persons  will  be  ex- 
panded to  grant  the  area  municipalities  in 
Metro  the  same  power  over  roads  within 
their  own  jurisdiction  and  to  allow  councils 
to  define  classes  of  transit  vehicles  other 
than  TTC  vehicles,  which  would  be  able 
to  use  the  reserved  lanes. 

DOG  LICENSING  AND  LIVE  STOCK 

AND  POULTRY  PROTECTION 

AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson  moved  first  reading 
of  Bill  183,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Dog  Li- 
censing and  Live  Stock  and  Poultry  Protec- 
tion Amendment  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  sec- 
tions 19(2)  and  19(3)  of  the  act  deal  with 
compensation  for  killing  or  injuring  of  live- 
stock and  poultry  by  wolves  in  territories 
without  municipal  organization.  The  subsec- 
tions are  re-enacted  to  constitute  agricul- 
tural representatives  and  assistant  agri- 
cultural representatives  as  valuers  in  terri- 
tories without  municipal  organization,  and 
to  set  out  in  detail  and  expand  the  proce- 
dure for  determining  the  amount  of  com- 
pensation payable.  At  present,  such  proce- 
dures are  incorporated  by  reference  to  cer- 
tain subsections  of  section  14  of  the  act. 


SHEEP  AND  WOOL  MARKETING  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson  moved  first  reading 
of  Bill  184,  An  Act  respecting  the  Marketing 
of  Sheep  and  Wool. 

Motion   agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
purpose  of  the  bill  is  to  extend  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Wool  Marketing  Act  to  the  pro- 
duction and  marketing  of  sheep  that  are  sold 
for  the  production  of  meat. 

ASSESSMENT  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  185,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Assessment 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  pur- 
pose of  the  bill  is  to  postpone  to  December 
1981  the  return  of  assessments  at  full  mar- 
ket value  across  the  province.  The  bill  will 
allow  us  to  continue  with  the  section  86 
reassessment  program,  which  has  been  suc- 
cessfully implemented  in  108  municipalities 
to  date.  Approximately  110  more  munic- 
ipalities will  be  reassessed  under  section  86 
later  this  year  for  1981  taxation  purposes. 

In  addition,  I  am  proposing  in  this  bill 
administrative  amendments  to  further  clarify 
and  update  certain  operating  provisions  with- 
in the  Assessment  Act. 

4  p.m. 

BRUCE   COUNTY  BOARD  OF 

EDUCATION    AND    TEACHERS 

DISPUTE    RESOLUTION   ACT 

iMr.  Sargent  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
186,  An  Act  to  resolve  the  Dispute  between 
the  Bruce  County  Board  of  Education  and 
the  Secondary  School  Teachers. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  resolve  the  strike  between  the 
Bruce  County  Board  of  Education  and  the 
secondary  school  teachers.  I  hope  this  bill 
can  do  something  towards  resolving  the 
problem. 

It  is  a  pretty  unbelievable  situation  in  a 
democratic,  free  society,  and  with  a  minority 
government,  that  this  bill  could  get  before 
the  House,  but  our  kids  still  cannot  be  edu- 
cated. Although  they  are  paying  their  bills, 
they  cannot  be  educated.  It  is  a  terrible 
situation. 


4232 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


TORONTO  ISLAND  HOMES 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Min- 
ister of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  has  intro- 
duced a  bill  with  reference  to  the  stay  for 
the  Islanders,  can  he  enlighten  us  as  to 
what  procedures  we  are  to  follow  to  ensure 
that  the  bill  is  in  place  before  Monday 
when  the  evictions   are  effective? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was 
going  to  announce  this  when  we  announce 
House  business  later  on  today.  We  intend 
to  call  the  bill  for  second  and  third  reading 
tomorrow.  It  is  hoped  that  royal  assent  can 
be  given  if  those  stages  are  passed  tomor- 
row. 

ANSWER  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
government  House  leader  has  just  tabled 
the  answers  to  questions  283,  284,  370,  372, 
373,  382,  384,  385  to  387,  and  394,  and  the 
interim  answers  to  questions  376,  379  and 
384  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper.  (See  ap- 
pendix, page  4250.) 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

PRIVATE  MEMBERS' 
PUBLIC  BUSINESS 

WOMEN'S  ECONOMIC  EQUALITY  ACT 

Mr.  Charlton  moved  second  reading  of  Bill 
157,  An  Act  respecting  Economic  Equality 
for  Women  in  Ontario. 

Interruption. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  We  Welcome  visitors 
in  our  gallery.  We  are  pleased  that  you  take 
a  great  deal  of  interest  in  what  we  are  doing 
here,  but  I  will  have  to  request  that  you 
remain  silent  so  we  will  have  an  opportunity 
to  hear  what  the  member  who  has  the  floor 
has  to  say. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very 
pleased  and  proud  to  have  been  able  to 
introduce  this  bill  for  first  and  second  read- 
ing and  to  be  able  to  debate  this  bill  here 
this  afternoon.  It  is  a  little  unfortunate  that 
a  matter  so  important  will  be  somewhat  limit- 
ed in  time,  but  none  the  less  it  is  a  very 
important  bill.  It  is,  as  I  think  the  House  is 
aware,  part  of  an  economic  package  this 
caucus  put  forward  in  three  bills,  all  of 
which  are  complementary  and  all  of  which 
are  very  important,  one  to  the  other. 

The  purpose  of  Bill  157  is,  first  of  all,  to 
create   in  the   Ministry  Of  Labour  an  equal 


employment  office  which  will  start  to  deal  in 
an  effective  way  with  the  whole  question  of 
valid  and  successful  affirmative  action  pro- 
grams in  Ontario  in  employment. 

Second,  the  bill  will  design,  along  with 
and  complementary  to  the  other  bills  that 
have  been  introduced,  an  apprenticeship  and 
skills  training  program  in  Ontario,  and  see 
that  women  have  fair  access  to  that  program, 
which  it  would  appear  they  do  not  now  have. 
I  think  the  statistics  point  to  the  problems 
quite  clearly. 

The  bill,  in  addition,  will  provide  for  uni- 
versally acceptable  and  affordable  dav  care 
so  that  the  women  in  this  province  will  have 
full  access  to  meaningful  employment  in  a 
situation  where  they  can,  first,  notice  that 
most  of  their  pav  cheque  is  not  going  to  be 
gobbled  up  by  day  care  and,  second,  know 
that  the  quality  of  day  care  they  get  is  ade- 
quate   and   meaningful   for   their   children. 

The  bill  will  establish  as  well  a  principle 
we  debated  at  length  last  year,  the  establish- 
ment and  enforcement  of  equal  pay  for  equal 
work  of  equal  value  in  Ontario.  This  is  a 
principle  that  is  also  extremely  important  in 
the  province,  and  I  will  get  into  that  a  little 
b't  later. 

Lastly,  the  bill  will  create  in  statute,  in 
law,  a  definition  of  and  protection  from 
sexual  harassment  in  the  work  place. 

This  caucus  has  been  in  the  forefront  of 
dealing  with  women's  legislation  in  Ontario, 
especially  in  the  labour  field.  Over  the  years 
we  have  dealt  with  a  number  of  bills  dealing 
with  the  problems  and  the  discriminations 
that  women  are  confronted  by  in  the  work 
nlace  and  in  their  employment.  My  colleague 
the  member  for  Windsor-Sandwich  (Mr. 
Bounsall),  who  was  up  during  question 
neriod,  has  dealt  with  bills  on  domestics, 
bills  on  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal  value 
and  a  number  of  other  issues.  This  member 
has  debated  in  this  House  the  bill  on  do- 
mestics. My  colleague  the  member  for  Hamil- 
ton Centre  (Mr.  M.  N.  Davison)  currently 
has  a  bill  before  the  House  dealing  with 
sexual  harassment. 

The  bill  We  have  here  today  is  probably 
the  most  important  of  all  the  women's  bills 
we  have  dealt  with  in  this  Legislature.  It  is 
the  most  comprehensive  bill  attempting  to 
deal  in  a  fairly  straightforward  way  with  the 
kinds  of  problems  that  women  in  this  prov- 
ince tell  us  they  have:  not  imagined 
problems,  and  not  solutions  based  totally  on 
principle  either,  but  solutions  based  on  the 
realities  women  are  confronted  with  and 
solutions  suggested  by  the  women's  organiza- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4233 


tions  that  have  been  dealing  with  women's 
problems  in  the  work  place. 

It  is  not  even  fully  a  case  here  of  ideo- 
logical differences  between  this  side  of  the 
House  and  the  government  side.  It  is,  more 
properly  put,  the  difference  between  the 
recognition  and  the  understanding  of  the 
problem  and  the  will  to  deal  with  it. 

My  colleague  asked  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Elgie)  a  question  about  the  crown  em- 
ployees affirmative  action  program  this  after- 
noon, and  I  understand  the  minister's  un- 
willingness to  admit  openly  the  program  is 
not  working.  On  the  other  hand,  we  get  a 
little  tired  in  this  House  of  hearing  the  min- 
ister brush  off  or  rant  about  the  government's 
commitment  to  affirmative  action  when  we 
do  not  see  in  hard  statistics  the  success  of 
that  program.  No  one  is  going  to  believe  it 
is  working  until  we  do.  All  of  the  provisions 
of  this  bill  will  be  administered  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Labour  with  the  exception  of  the  day 
care  provisions. 

4:10  p.m. 

It  is  our  belief  that  the  present  economic 
situation  in  Ontario,  the  intolerably  high  level 
of  unemployment  and  the  resultant  social 
problems  and  social  costs  are  the  most  serious 
and  important  issues  currently  facing  us  in 
the  province.  Furthermore,  we  recognize  that 
the  economic  burdens  on  women  are  inevit- 
ably much  more  severe  than  for  society  as  a 
whole  when  we  are  under  the  kind  of  eco- 
nomic circumstances  we  are  under  at  present. 

Traditionally  and  continually,  unemploy- 
ment for  women  is  higher  than  that  for  men. 
Women's  wages  go  up  more  slowly  than 
men's.  Their  access  to  the  better-paying  jobs 
is  not  there.  In  the  economic  hard  times  we 
are  faced  with  right  now,  they  continually 
receive  the  brunt  of  that  economic  hardship. 
Women  are  participating  in  the  work  force 
in  greater  numbers  than  ever  before.  The 
majority  of  working  women  do  so  out  of 
necessity. 

We  have  had  a  social  problem  in  this 
province  for  a  long  time.  I  suppose  the  total 
blame  cannot  be  put  on  the  government  for 
some  of  the  social  attitudes  that  exist  about 
women  participating  in  the  work  force.  There 
are  still  a  lot  of  people  in  this  province  who 
believe  that  when  women  work  they  take 
jobs  away  from  men.  Unfortunately,  there 
does  not  even  seem  to  be  any  discrimination 
of  the  same  kind  against  men  when  it  may 
not  be  necessary  for  them  to  work.  Let  us  be 
realistic.  In  a  free  society  such  as  ours  is,  or 
is  supposed  to  be,  everyone  who  wishes  to 
work  should  have  the  right  to  do  so. 


As  I  suggested,  the  majority  of  women 
who  are  working  today  are  working  out  of 
necessity  to  support  themselves  and  their 
families  as  a  sole  wage  earner  or  to  supple- 
ment their  spouse's  income,  which  may  be 
extremely  low;  it  may  result  from  the  fact 
that  Ontario  has  the  lowest  minimum  wage 
in  the  country.  Women  are  working,  whether 
they  be  sole  supporters  or  whether  they  are 
attempting  to  supplement  the  very  low  in- 
come of  their  husbands,  to  provide  a  decent 
standard  of  living  for  their  families  and  a 
decent  opportunity  for  their  children  in  the 
future. 

On  average,  women  in  this  province  earn 
only  58  per  cent  of  what  men  earn.  As  in- 
flation continues  to  climb,  women's  wages 
generally  rise  more  slowly  and  they  fall 
further  and  further  behind.  At  present,  un- 
employment for  women  is  about  7.7  per  cent, 
while  for  men  the  rate  is  below  seven  per 
cent.  Generally,  the  unemployment  rate  for 
women  runs  one  or  two  percentage  points 
above  that  for  men. 

Many  working  women  need  access  to  good 
quality  day  care  as  well  to  work.  It  has  been 
argued  that  we  cannot  afford  more  day  care, 
but  I  would  suggest  as  strongly  as  I  can 
that  we  cannot  afford  not  to  provide  it,  both 
in  economic  terms  and  in  social  terms. 

In  terms  of  those  sections  of  the  bill  that 
deal  with  affirmative  action  and  with  equal 
pay  for  work  of  equal  value,  I  would  like  to 
take  a  moment  to  read  a  couple  of  things 
into  the  record.  Most  members  will  recall 
that  last  January  and  February  the  committee 
on  general  government  held  hearings  and 
did  a  clause-by-clause  study  of  Bill  3,  a  bill 
designed  to  create  equal  pay  for  work  of 
equal  value.  I  want  to  read  a  couple  of  quotes 
from  the  former  member  for  Carleton,  Mr. 
Handleman,  who  is  no  longer  with  us.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  is  a  by-election  going  on 
in  his  riding  right  now.  He  was  a  member  of 
that  committee. 

I  want  to  read  this  to  members  so  that  we 
can  understand  clearly  what  the  issues  are 
here  today.  I  do  not  want  to  hear  the  Minis- 
ter of  Labour  stand  up  and  deny  the  prob- 
lem is  as  bad  as  we  are  making  it  out  to  be. 
This  is  Mr.  Handleman's  comment  in  a  dis- 
cussion with  Mr.  Towill  and  Mr.  Keen  of  the 
Canadian  Manufacturers'  Association  on  the 
morning  of  January  17:  "Your  suggestion 
here  is  that  you  say  you  could  accept,  I 
assume,  or  approve  of  a  direct  government 
policy  of  equal  opportunity.  May  I  ask  you, 
because  I'm  a  proponent  of  self-regulation, 
what  have  you  done— either  your  association 


4234 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


or  your  labour  relations  committee— to  bring 
into  being  on  a  fairly  general  basis  through- 
out your  membership,  programs— affirmative 
action  programs,  equal  opportunity  programs 
—supporting  them,  promoting  them  and  ask- 
ing your  members,  'Will  you  please  try  to  do 
this  kind  of  thing?'  I'm  asking  you  as  the 
Canadian  Manufacturers'  Association  and 
labour  relations  committee,  what  have  you 
done  to  prevent  the  government  from  inter- 
vening by  bringing  in  a  bill  and  forcing  you 
to  do  it?" 

Reading  further  on,  Mr.  Handleman  says, 
"I  have  had,  of  course,  dialogues  with  your 
organization  before  about  the  need  to  avoid 
legislation  by  your  anticipating  the  needs  of 
society  and  doing  something  yourself.  I  hap- 
pen to  be  against  the  proliferation  of  legisla- 
tion, but  where  there  is  a  void,  as  in  this 
case,  whether  this  government  does  this"— 
"this"  referring  to  equal  opportunity  or 
affirmative  action— "or  does  what  Dr.  Bounsall 
is  asking  it  to,  I  think,  by  your  own  inaction 
and  lack  of  recognition  of  the  problem  you 
have  led'  to  another  form  of  intervention  in 
the  economy,  which  displeases  me,  but  which 
is  necessary  in  order  to  solve  a  social  prob- 
lem." 

I  wanted  to  read  that  into  the  record  so 
we  could  be  very  clear  that  the  problem 
exists,  that  the  problem  is  not  now  being 
dealt  with— by  the  very  clear  admission  of 
the  former  member  for  Carleton— and  that 
the  problem  has  to  be  dealt  with.  Because 
it  is  not  being  dealt  with  voluntarily,  it  has 
to  be  dealt  with  by  this  Legislature. 

During  the  course  of  those  hearings  last 
winter  a  fairly  large  number  of  employers 
and  employer  associations  who  came  before 
the  committee  suggested  they  would  prefer 
the  legislated  affirmative  action  route  to  the 
equal-pay-for-work-of-equal-value  route. 

We  as  a  party  and  I  as  a  member  of  this 
House  do  not  see  those  two  as  mutually  ex- 
clusive approaches  to  the  problems  con- 
fronted by  women  in  the  work  force.  In  fact, 
we  feel  that  both  are  necessary  parts  of  this 
government's  initiatives  in  those  areas.  Hence 
we  have  provided  for  both  in  this  bill.  We 
have  taken  the  approach  on  the  affirmative 
action  program  that  an  equal  employment 
office  should  be  set  up  in  the  Ministry  of 
Labour.  We  have  no  illusion  that  it  is  not 
going  to  take  some  time  to  accomplish.  But 
that  office  should  sit  down  with  those  com- 
panies, industry  by  industry,  and  work  out  a 
reasonable  and  satisfactory  approach  to  af- 
firmative action  in  each  company.  We  say 
that  if  an  agreement  cannot  be  reached,  a 
tribunal    should    be    set    up    to    impose    an 


affirmative  action  program  and  to  impose  the 
goals  of  that  program.  I  am  quite  sure,  if 
this  bill  were  to  pass  and  become  law,  the 
present  government  certainly  would  not 
abuse  that. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  They  might  even  get  re- 
elected. 

Mr.   Charlton:   That  is  quite  a  possibility. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  But  they  don't  de- 
serve to  be. 

Mr.  Charlton:  But  at  least  it  would  put 
government  in  a  position  that  it  is  in  now, 
or  having  some  input  in  affirmative  action 
programs  and  some  input  into  monitoring 
their  success  and  changing  them  when  they 
are  not  working.  They  have  none  of  that 
now,  and  affirmative  action  programs  in  this 
province  just  are  not  working. 

One  of  the  parts  of  the  bill  is  an  expan- 
sion of  skills  training  programs  and  a  com- 
mitment on  the  part  of  the  government  in 
legislation  that  those  affirmative  action  pro- 
grams would  be  accessible  to  women  in  a 
fair  and  open  way.  In  the  matter  of  affirm- 
ative action  for  women  and  the  skills  train- 
ing and  retraining  programs  that  are  being 
run  in  this  province,  the  statistics  are  just 
horrible  in  terms  of  women. 

4:20  p.m. 

The  equal  pay  sections  are  just  as  impor- 
tant to  the  affirmative  action  program  in  this 
bill  as  the  affirmative  action  program  itself. 
One  of  the  things  that  was  made  very  clear 
in  the  committee  last  winter  was  that  each 
deals  with  different  problems.  Equal  pay 
for  work  of  equal  value  deals  with  the 
question  of  the  value  of  a  job.  Affirmative 
action  and  equal  opportunity  deals  with  get- 
ting women  into  jobs  from  which  they  have 
been  traditionally  excluded.  Both  are  neces- 
sary to  deal  with  the  economic  problems 
that  women  are  confronted  with  in  the 
work  place.  Both  are  necessary  simoly  be- 
cause affirmative  action  programs,  although 
they  may  move  some  women  and  eventually 
substantial  numbers  of  women  into  better- 
paying  jobs  from  which  they  have  been 
excluded  in  the  past,  are  not  necessarily  go- 
ing to  do  anything  to  solve  the  existing  job 
ghetto  problems  in  the  textile  industry,  the 
clerical  sector  and  so  on.  It  is  not  going  to 
do  anything  to  solve  those  problems.  Equal 
pay  for  work  of  equal  value  will  start  to 
deal  with  some  of  those  problems  as  well. 

In  wrapping  up,  I  want  to  say  quickly 
that  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Commission 
ruling  on  sexual  harassment  earlier  this 
year  was  a  welcome  one,  but  it  is  still  not 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4235 


good  enough.  A  number  of  the  comments 
that  were  made  at  the  time  of  that  ruling 
suggested  very  clearly  that,  although  every- 
body was  extremely  happy  with  the  ruling, 
a  much  clearer  definition  of  sexual  harass- 
ment was  still  needed).  It  is  time  that  this 
Legislature  saw  that  there  was  a  clear  defini- 
tion of  sexual  harassment  as  it  relates  to  the 
job,  as  it  relates  to  dismissal  from  employ- 
ment, as  it  relates  to  punishment  and  as  it 
relates  to  withholding  promotion  and  access 
to  other  positions.  Those  definitions  are  re- 
quired and  are  long  overdue  in  this  province. 
We  need  them.  We  need  this  bill. 

We  need  the  whole  range  of  tools  with 
which  to  start  dealing  with,  first,  the 
economic  inequality  that  exists  in  this  prov- 
ince for  women  and,  second,  the  social 
attitudes  that  have  to  be  changed  and  will 
take  time  to  change.  We  need  all  of  these 
tools  to  deal  with  those,  and  we  need  them 
as  quicldy  as  we  can  get  them.  The  longer 
we  -wait  and  piddle  around  with  adding  a 
few  people  here  and  a  few  people  there  to 
the  enforcement  of  existing  legislation  which 
is  not  working,  the  worse  the  problem  will 
be  when  it  comes  time  finally  in  the  govern- 
ment's eyes  to  deal  with  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill 
before  the  House  today  raises  some  impor- 
tant issues,  most  of  which  we  have  dis- 
cussed and  debated  before.  What  separates 
us  from  the  sponsors  of  this  particular  bill 
are  not  its  objectives  but  rather  the  means 
by  which  they  can  best  be  achieved. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  How  long?  How  long  do  we 
go  on  with  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  extended  the  member 
the  courtesy  of  listening;  if  he  is  capable 
of  doing  that,  I  would  ask  him  to  please  try. 

I  quite  appreciate  that  in  supporting  these 
objectives  of  the  bill,  while  opposing  its  sub- 
stantive provisions,  there  will  be  some  who 
will  argue  that  the  government  is  somehow 
opposed  to  the  aspirations  of  women  for 
equity  in  the  labour  market.  I  suppose  we 
can  never  hope  to  convince  those  who  mis- 
construe our  commitment.  But  for  those  who 
are  genuinely  interested  in  knowing  the  gov- 
ernment's strategy  for  achieving  equal  rights 
for  women  in  employment,  I  would  like  to 
outline  briefly  what  is  now  being  done  and 
what  we  plan  for  the  future. 

First  of  all,  let  me  say  that  we  believe 
the  interrelated  problems  of  equal  pay  and 
equal  opportunity  cannot  be  tackled  and 
solved  by  a  narrow-gauge,  one-track  legis- 
lative approach.  What  is  required,  in  our 
view,  is  action  on  a  number  of  fronts  simul- 


taneously,   some    legislative    and   some    pro- 
grammatic. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Try  a  wide-gauge,  one-track 
approach.   Try  something. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Try  it  again;  my  friend 
can  be  polite  shortly. 

We  need  a  blend  of  legislative  compul- 
sion and  educational  persuasion.  We  believe 
it  is  defeatist  and  quite  bluntly  incorrect 
to  assume  that  the  only  effective  route  to 
equality  is  through  legislative  action. 

What  are  the  elements  of  the  govern- 
ment's approach?  First  of  all,  there  are  the 
existing  equal  pay  provisions  of  the  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act.  Under  that  act, 
women  are  entitled  to  be  paid  the  same  as 
men  for  performing  substantially  the  same 
work  in  the  same  establishment  where  skill, 
effort  and  responsibility  are  substantially  the 
same.  Under  the  present  act,  there  have  been 
substantial  settlements  achieved  in  response 
to  individual  complaints,  and  the  complaint 
number  is  mounting.  More  recently,  a  pro- 
gram of  random  audits  has  been  undertaken. 

A  special  section  of  the  branch  has  been 
established,  staged  with  specially  trained 
officers  who  have  been  assisted  in  their 
training  by  representatives  of  the  women's 
bureau.  New  staff  have  been  added  for  this 
purpose.  In  addition,  as  members  know, 
there  was  a  major  media  campaign  on  equal 
pay  last  summer.  All  the  indications  are  that 
the  campaign  and1  the  activities  of  the  in- 
spectorate have  increased  public  awareness 
of  employees'  rights  and,  equally  important, 
employers'   obligations   under   the   law. 

Notwithstanding  the  strength  of  the  exist- 
ing law,  I  believe  there  are  some  changes 
that  can  and  should  be  made  to  increase 
its  effectiveness.  For  example,  I  think  the 
present  restriction  to  comparisons  within  a 
single  establishment  should  be  broadened. 
As  well,  provisions  should  be  made  to  pro- 
hibit an  employer  from  substituting  persons 
of  the  opposite  sex  in  jobs  or  restricting 
entry  to  jobs  to  one  sex  to  avoid  the  appli- 
cation of  the  act. 

Finally,  I  believe  there  is  considerable 
merit  in  using  a  composite  test,  and  I  said 
so  before  the  committee  last  winter,  a  com- 
bined profile  of  skill,  effort  and  responsibility 
rather  than  requiring  each  of  these  elements 
to  be  considered  and  met  separately  in  de- 
termining whether  those  performing  substan- 
tially similar  jobs  are  being  paid  equally. 

I  will  soon  be  discussing  these  proposals 
with  my  colleagues,  and  I  have  every  reason 
to  believe  I  will  be  in  a  position  to  present 
them  to  the  House  in  the  near  future. 


4236 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  third  point  concerns  affirmative  ac- 
tion. This  government  is  a  strong  proponent 
of  voluntary  affirmative  action  programs,  not 
only  for  women  but  also  for  other  groups 
who  have  historically  suffered  from  systemic 
discrimination  and  have  not  had  equal  ac- 
cess to  the  labour  market. 

To  reinforce  this  commitment  within  the 
Ontario  public  service,  a  work  force  of  some 
83,000  persons,  the  women  crown  employees 
office  of  my  ministry  has  spearheaded  a 
phased  equal  opportunity  program  which 
culminated  this  year  in  cabinet  approval  for 
individual  ministry  and  government-wide 
target  setting.  The  targets,  based  on  pro- 
jected vacancies  and  the  availability  of 
women  applicants,  are  aimed  at  achieving 
a  30  per  cent  female  participation  rate  in 
all  bargaining  unit  categories  in  the  man- 
agement module.  This  program  not  only 
should  benefit  women  crown  employees  but 
also  should  serve  as  a  model  and  indeed  an 
inducement  to  private  sector  employers  to 
follow  suit. 

The  fourth  area  also  deals  with  encour- 
aging affirmative  action  in  the  private  sector. 
This  continues  to  be  one  of  the  major  goals 
of  the  women's  bureau  of  my  ministry.  The 
bureau's  efforts  have  two  major  elements. 
The  first  is  the  affirmative  action  consulting 
services.  The  staff  of  that  consulting  service 
informs,  consults,  advises,  exhorts  and  per- 
suades employers  that  it  is  not  only  fair 
but  also  in  their  own  self-interest  for  them 
to  institute  and  vigorously  pursue  affirmative 
action  plans.  A  recent  comprehensive  ques- 
tionnaire survey  conducted  by  the  bureau 
indicates  substantial  advances  in  this  area. 

Complementing  the  work  of  the  consulting 
service  is  the  Equal  Opportunity  Advisory 
Council,  formed  in  April  1979  and  comprising 
leaders  of  business  and  labour.  The  council 
has  two  functions:  first,  to  advise  me  and  my 
staff  on  how  equal  opportunity  can  be  encour- 
aged in  the  most  effective  way  and,  second, 
to  exert  their  own  influence  within  their  own 
constituencies  to  heighten  awareness  and 
bring  about  positive  and  measurable  results 
through  new  affirmative  action  initiatives  in 
the  private  sector. 

The  fifth  point  relates  to  sexual  harass- 
ment. As  members  know,  and  as  the  member 
has  previously  referred  to,  the  present  human 
rights  code  prohibits  discrimination  in  em- 
ployment on  the  grounds  of  sex.  The  present 
law  has  been  construed  by  the  Ontario 
Human  Rights  Commission  and  by  boards  of 
inquiry  appointed  by  that  commission  to  pro- 
vide   a    substantial    measure    of    protection 


against  on  the  job  sexual  harassment.  I  be- 
lieve, however,  the  legal  protection  should 
be  more  explicit,  and  I  can  therefore  advise 
this  House  that  will  be  one  of  the  matters 
addressed  in  the  new  human  rights  code 
which  I  shall  be  introducing  for  first  reading 
in  the  next  10  days. 
4:30  p.m. 

The  sixth  point  has  to  do  with  strategic 
evaluation  of  the  various  elements  of  our 
existing  programs  and  the  exploration  of  al- 
ternative approaches.  The  Ontario  Manpower 
Commission,  in  co-operation  with  the  Ontario 
region  of  the  Canada  Employment  and  Immi- 
gration Commission,  is  working  towards  the 
completion  of  a  women's  employment  strategy 
report.  I  expect  to  receive  that  report  and  to 
present  it  to  my  colleagues  within  the  next 
month  or  two.  Judging  from  the  work  of 
the  commission  in  its  other  undertakings,  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  report  will  be  a 
thorough  and  comprehensive  analysis  and 
evaluation  of  a  broad  range  of  topics,  includ- 
ing methods  to  ease  access  for  women  into 
nontraditional  jobs,  such  as  skilled  trades. 

In  the  time  available,  I  have  been  able 
to  touch  upon  only  the  principal  features  of 
our  various  ways  of  approaching  this  critical 
subject.  I  hope  my  summary  has  indicated 
that  we  are  actively  and  vigorously  pursuing 
all  the  matters  dealt  with  in  Bill  157,  as  well 
as  some  others  not  explicitly  dealt  with  in 
the  bill.  Therefore,  while  affirming  our  sup- 
port for  the  general  principles  enunciated  in 
the  preamble  of  the  bill,  we  cannot  support 
its  content. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  this  point 
in  time  I  am  filled  with  a  sense  of  humilia- 
tion and  shame— not  for  myself  but  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  human  race  in  this 
province— because  this  government,  by  minis- 
terial statement  in  a  private  member's  hour, 
has  indicated  a  veto  of  this  bill. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  a  few  of  the 
things  that  have  happened  in  the  course  of 
my  lifetime  in  the  battle  to  try  to  bring 
dignity  to  each  individual  in  our  society.  I 
do  not  fight  discrimination  against  women 
simply  because  I  am  a  woman.  I  fight  for 
the  right  of  every  individual  to  fulfil  his  or 
her  God-given  talents  to  the  fullest  extent 
of  his  or  her  ability.  That  is  a  principle 
which,  unfortunately,  this  government  does 
not  understand. 

I  can  tell  the  members  my  mother  was,  I 
think,  the  first  woman  building  contractor  in 
Canada.  As  a  child,  I  remember  her  saving 
to  me:  "You  know,  it  is  strange.  Any  drunk- 
ard lying  in  the  gutter  can  vote  on  how  my 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4237 


tax  dollars  will  be  paid,  will  be  served.  I 
have  no  vote."  That  is  the  same  mentality 
we  have  here  all  these  years  later. 

We  have  a  bill  before  us  that  I  find  sad, 
as  I  felt  the  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value  bill  was  sad,  simply  because  neither  of 
them  causes  anybody  to  recognize  the  spe- 
cial skills  of  women.  We  are  still  dealing 
with  that  old  business  of  trying  to  compare 
the  woman  to  the  male  regardless  of  her 
skills.  I  had  hoped  that  in  my  lifetime  we 
might  at  least  recognize  individuals  for  their 
skills  rather  than  this  comparison  route 
which  denigrates  women,  and  members  know 
that. 

This  minister  is  prepared  to  stand  in  the 
House  and  tell  us  the  great  things  the  gov- 
ernment is  doing  for  women,  yet  he  takes 
the  same  position  as  some  of  the  other  Tories 
did  in  committee,  in  talking  about  govern- 
ment employees,  where  parking  lot  attendants 
are  male  and  switchboard  operators  are 
female.  Their  skills  are  greater;  their  classi- 
fication and  job  designation  require  greater 
skills.  He  says  the  only  answer  for  those 
women  is  to  go  and  be  parking  lot  attendants 
if  they  are  going  to  get  anything  like  equal 
pay  from  this  government. 

I  say  this  to  the  author  of  the  bill:  Sadly, 
I  do  not  think  this  bill  takes  us  much  further 
than  that  position.  I  recognize  that  with  a 
government  that  believes,  with  the  board  of 
trade  and  the  chamber  of  commerce  and  all 
these  other  prestigious  groups,  if  you  pat 
women  on  the  head  and  sav,  "Be  patient;  all 
things  will  work  together  for  good—" 

Hon.   Mr.   Elgie:    You  sure  haven't  heard 

me. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  have  not  heard  the  min- 
ister say  anything  positive  the  other  way. 

What  has  the  government  done  about  the 
pay  for  parking  lot  attendants  and  switch- 
board operators?  Not  one  thing.  And  it  will 
not  do  anything,  because  it  believes  it  has 
to  keep  this  kind  of  gap  still  in  existence. 
This  is  the  government.  It  is  not  somebody 
down  on  Bay  Street. 

.   Hon.  Mr,  Elgie:  That  is  not  true. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Is  the  minister  saying 
what  I  am  saying  is  untrue?  What  has  he 
done  about  it?  He  is  the  Minister  of  Labour; 
what  has  he  done? 

All  I  am  saying  is  this:  When  a  government 
is  prepared  to  say  to  the  majority  of  the 
human  race  in  Ontario:  "Look,  children,  we 
will  look  after  you  in  the  fullness  of  time," 
it  is  an  insult  to  those  women.  The  board  of 
trade   and   the   chamber   of  commerce  have 


advocated  patience  to  women;  so  does  the 
minister,  who  is  going  to  do  more  studies.  I 
think  women  have  been  studied  about  as 
much  as  the  native  people  and  they  have  had 
about  the  same  results  from  this  government. 
I  regret  my  time  is  short  to  enter  into  this 
debate.  I  find  this  debate  about  the  role  of 
women  and  who  and  what  they  are  is  about 
the  same  kind  of  debate  that  took  place  in 
Britain  when  some  stalwart— imagine— sug- 
gested that  they  should  eliminate  child  labour. 
The  same  arguments  as  were  used  then  are 
being  used  by  this  government  to  women 
today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  the  Liberals  opposed 
it  then. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Come  off  it. 

Let  me  say  this:  All  we  need  from  this 
government  is  a  statement  and  a  law  which 
says  women  are  indeed  people,  their  talents 
shall  be  recognized  as  talents  and  they  shall 
be  employed  and  paid  accordingly. 

I  have  not  dwelt  on  the  other  matters  in 
this  bill,  because  I  do  not  have  time.  Just 
once,  I  would1  love  to  be  in  the  position  where 
I  could  say  to  all  of  you,  "Look,  be  patient, 
child;  you  will  get  your  deserts  some  day." 

I  simply  remind  the  minister  that  the  law 
is  on  the  side  of  women.  They  have  been 
declared  to  be  people.  There  has  been  no 
such  declaration  as  far  as  he  is  concerned. 

Interruption. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  I  believe  the 
visitors  in  the  galleries  have  been  advised 
that  we  cannot  allow  any  demonstrations.  I 
must  remind  the  visitors  again  that  we  cannot 
allow  any  further-  demonstration. 
4:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  after  that  last 
comment  of  trie  member  for  St.  George,  I 
was  going  to  say  it  is  nice  to  have  some 
people  in  the  gallery,  particularly  with  re- 
spect to  this  bill  which  New  Democrats 
think  is  one  of  the  most  important  bills  to 
come  before  the  Ontario  Legislature,  not  just 
this  year  but  over  the  course  of  the  last 
decade. 

The  New  Democratic  Party  has  taken  a 
strong  commitment  in  relation  to  economic 
equality  for  women  and  we  want  to  carry 
that  commitment  through.  If  we  cannot  get 
the  government  to  carry  it  through,  then  we 
will  change  the  government  and  put  a  govern- 
ment in  office  in  this  province  that  will  en- 
sure that  economic  equality  for  women  is 
not  just  a  slogan  and  not  just  a  program,  but 
a  reality  that  affects  all  of  the  4.5  million 
women  in  Ontario. 


4238 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


We  are  now  the  only  party  to  have  a 
women's  critic,  a  women's  spokesman,  in  the 
Ontario  Legislature.  He  is  the  member  for 
Windsor-Sandwich  (Mr.  Bounsall).  I  am  sorry 
he  cannot  speak  in  the  debate  today  and  I 
am  sorry  that  the  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine  and  the  member  for  Carleton  East 
(Ms.  Gigantes)  and1  all  of  our  other  members 
cannot  speak  as  well,  because  this  is  a  bill 
that  is  important  to  all  of  us  on  the  side  of 
the  New  Democrats. 

We  have  appointed  a  women's  organizer  in 
the  party  because  we  think  it  is  important  to 
reach  out  to  the  majority  of  the  electors  of 
the  province  who  happen  to  be  women.  We 
have  appointed  a  women's  co-ordmator  in 
the  NDP  caucus  for  the  same  reason.  We 
are  taking  this  question  seriously.  I  wish  the 
government  would  take  the  question  seriously 
as  well. 

I  want  to  tell  members  why  we  have 
brought  the  various  measures  of  the  economic 
equality  bill  forward  in  a  package  as  we 
have  done  today.  I  want  to  tell  about  it  by 
talking  about  a  meeting  I  had  a  couple  of 
weeks  ago  with  a  bunch  of  women  at  Seneca 
College  who  were  training  themselves  for 
jobs  where  one  doesn't  traditionally  find1 
women.  They  hope  their  course  in  nontradi- 
tional  occupations  will  help  them  play  an 
equal  role  in  the  working  world,  but  they 
know  from  bitter  experience  that  it  is  an 
uphill  battle. 

The  women  there  told  me  about  the  prob- 
lems they  ran  into  when  they  tried  to  get 
better-paid  jobs.  They  were  women  who 
ranged  in  age  from  their  late  teens  to  their 
early  50s.  Many  were  mothers;  some  had  up 
to  20  years  of  work  experience  and  some  had 
almost  none.  But  the  problems  they  faced  are 
all  the  same,  and  they  are  the  same  problems 
I  have  heard  about  from  countless  women 
from  all  across  the  province  in  all  the 
years  I  have  been  in  politics.  Most  of  the 
group  had  been  unemployed  when  they 
started  that  course  at  Seneca  College.  That 
is  not  unusual,  because  there  are  141,000 
women  officially  unemployed  in  Ontario,  plus 
many  more  who  have  despaired  of  getting  a 
decent  job  and  dropped  out  of  the  labour 
force. 

The  jobs  those  women  at  Seneca  had  held 
had  been  mostly  sales  or  clerical  jobs.  They 
had  run  into  a  brick  wall  when  they  tried  to 
broaden  their  skills  and  move  on  up  the 
ladder  as  their  male  co-workers  did  after  a 
few  months  in  entry-level  jobs.  I  think  of  the 
women  in  British  American  Bank  Note,  a  com- 
pany with  a  factory  in  my  riding  of  Ottawa 


Centre.  They  had  up  to  20  years'  experience 
and  no  promotion  into  the  chain  that  allows 
them  to  become  skilled  printers.  Men  with  a 
few  years  of  high  school  who  came  on  as 
janitors  were  automatically  put  into  that  ap- 
prenticeship very  shortly  thereafter. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  And  made  more  money  too. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  made  more  money  as 
well. 

The  women  I  talked  to  saw  themselves 
being  trapped  in  a  lifetime  of  work  in  a  job 
that  men  saw  as  just  a  dull  but  necessarv 
start  to  a  career.  They  told  me  that  some- 
times they  go  into  a  bank.  If  they  are 
women,  they  learn  a  job  in  two  or  three 
months  and  stay  there  for  15  years.  That  is 
a  reality  in  our  province  today. 

The  women  in  this  group  who  had  young 
children  could  not  see  how  they  could  work 
if  they  could  not  get  day  care.  They  were 
worried  about  how  to  find  proper  day  care 
if  they  took  a  factory  job  where  there  were 
shifts  to  be  worked.  The  pay  is  decent  but 
there  is  no  day  care  after  5:30  at  night.  That 
is  not  a  problem  that  just  faces  40  women  at 
Seneca  College;  almost  half  of  the  women 
in  the  province  who  have  children  under  the 
age  of  six  are  in  the  labour  force.  That  is 
261,000  women  with  young  children  who 
need  day  care  and  many  of  them  cannot 
get  it. 

They  told  me  about  the  most  insidious 
obstacle  of  all  for  women  who  want  to  be 
economic  equals  in  this  society:  the  social 
pressure  on  them  to  conform  to  traditional 
roles.  They  spoke  of  the  guidance  counsellor 
in  grade  school  who  tells  a  woman  that  she 
should  be  taking  domestic  science  and  not 
the  course  in  shop  in  which  she  is  really 
interested  and  of  the  electrical  subcontractor 
who  hires  one  of  the  women  that  I  met  as  a 
trainee  but  then  loses  business  as  a  result. 

Those  attitudes  are  not  very  surprising, 
because  they  are  ratified  and  supported  by 
this  government.  Frankly,  I  am  ashamed  of 
what  the  Minister  of  Labour  had  to  say  in 
defending  the  tawdry  record  of  this  govern- 
ment in  looking  after  the  interests  of  women 
in  Ontario. 

In  the  employer-sponsored  training  branch 
—and  this  minister  has  some  input  into  that 
—there  is  a  fellow  who  explained  that  only  a 
fraction  of  one  per  cent  of  the  people  in 
this  program  are  women  because,  he  said, 
women  are  afraid  of  moving  parts  and 
equipment.  That  is  ridiculous.  He  said,  "It 
takes  a  particular  kind  of  cat  to  survive  on 
a  shop  floor,"  and  he  was  bloody  well  deter- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4239 


mined  that  was  not  going  to  be  a  woman- 
only  men. 

The  ministry's  program  had  five  women 
and  605  men  in  employer-sponsored  training 
a  year  ago.  Now  it  has  1,500  men  and  it  has 
actually  gone  down  to  only  four  women  in 
the  program.  Is  that  equal  opportunity?  That 
is  a  disgrace.  That  is  why  we  think  the  gov- 
ernment needs  legislated  answers  to  provide 
economic  equality  for  women  in  Ontario.  It 
is  no  good  just  relying  on  voluntary  action. 
That  has  been  the  government's  policy  for 
far  too  many  years.  It  has  not  worked  in 
the  past,  and  there  is  no  indication  it  is 
going  to  work  in  the  future  either.  The 
voluntary  affirmative  action  program  of 
which  the  government  is  so  proud  has  re- 
sulted in  affirmative  action  programs  with 
only  160  employers  after  seven  years.  The 
agreements  have  no  goals,  they  set  no  stan- 
dard and  they  have  no  teeth. 

We  want  an  equal  employment  office— it 
is  in  the  bill— to  work  with  employers  to 
develop  affirmative  action  plans  that  will 
legally  bind  them  to  hire,  train  and  promote 
women  rather  than  meeting  with  a  civil 
servant  every  once  in  a  while  and  saying 
nice  things  about  women.  That  equal  em- 
ployment office  should  start  by  lighting  a 
lire  under  the  provincial  government,  be- 
cause the  record  of  this  government  is 
shameful  when  it  comes  to  equal  oppor- 
tunities and  treating  women  on  the  basis 
of  equality. 

The  government  began  an  affirmative 
action  program  in  1973.  It  is  such  an 
abject  failure  that  today  two  thirds  of  the 
women  who  work  for  the  province  earn  less 
than  $13,000  a  year,  and  only  five  per  cent 
earn  more  than  $21,000  a  year.  I  would  ask 
any  minister  in  the  government  whether  they 
would  be  prepared  to  sustain  a  family  on 
that  kind  of  income. 

It  is  no  surprise  either,  when  one  con- 
siders that  last  year  the  government  tor- 
pedoed the  NDP  bill  introduced  by  the 
member  for  Windsor-Sandwich  (Mr.  Boun- 
sall)  oaMing  for  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value.  The  shoddy  thing  about  it  was  they 
took  the  former  member  for  Carleton,  Mr. 
HancHeman,  who  they  knew  was  going  to 
retire  a  few  weeks  later,  in  the  spring  of 
this  year,  and  used  that  member  as  the 
spokesperson  for  the  government  when  they 
said,  "Now  is  not  the  time  to  move  on  that 
vital  piece  of  legislation."  The  performance 
of  the  government  simply  underlines  the 
Conservative  failure  to  provide  anything 
approaching  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value. 


The  member  for  St.  George  (Mrs.  Camp- 
bell; mentioned  a  case  I  raised  in  the  Legis- 
lature. Why  is  it  that  switchboard  operators 
who  need  at  least  three  more  years  of  educa- 
tion and  experience  than  the  people  who 
run  parking  lots  in  the  government,  but  who 
are  predominantly  female,  earned  $38  a  week 
less  last  year?  Why  is  it  that,  since  I  asked 
that  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour, 
the  wage  gap  between  them  and  parking  lot 
attendants,  who  of  course  are  all  male,  has 
widened  to  $46  a  week?  That  is  another 
example  of  how  the  government  is  tailing 
to  live  up  to  whatever  principles  it  happens 
to  be  putting  forward. 

The  minister  launched  an  advertising 
campaign.  He  hired  11  more  civil  servants 
to  enforce  the  unenforceable  equal  pay 
provisions  of  the  present  Employment  Stan- 
dards Act,  and  so  far  this  year  he  has  won 
$72,000  in  equal  pay  cases.  This  works  out 
to  four  cents  for  every  working  woman  in 
the  province.  I  say  to  the  government  and 
the  Minister  of  Labour,  that  is  not  good 
enough.  It  is  not  good  enough  even  if  it  is 
an  improvement  over  the  $56,000  of  a  year 
ago.  It  is  no  wonder  the  average  earnings 
of  women  are  still  58  per  cent  of  the 
average  earnings  of  men  in  Ontario. 

Why  could  we  not  be  like  France  and 
Germany,  countries  where  women's  wages 
are  rapidly  catching  up  to  the  point  where 
they  are  almost  equal  with  the  pay  of  men? 
Why  can  we  not  have  that  as  our  goal  rather 
than  constantly  making  women  second-class 
citizens?  Why  can  we  not  pass  this  bill  and 
give  women  first-class  citizenship  in  the 
economy  of  the  province? 

The  government's  record  on  day  care  is 
a  record  of  cant  and  hypocrisy.  In  the  last 
four  years,  100,000  women  have  joined  the 
labour  force  in  Ontario.  The  number  of 
subsidized  day  care  spaces  has  gone  up  by 
only  5,000.  We  think  there  should  be  a 
right  to  day  care  in  Ontario.  We  think  it  is 
a  basic  necessity  if  women  are  to  have  an 
equal  role  in  our  economy.  Just  about  every 
municipal  candidate  elected  in  the  province 
pledged  a  commitment  to  day  care. 
4:50  p.m. 

When  will  this  government  recognize  the 
demand  is  out  there  and  that  women  will  not 
be  able  to  participate  as  equals  in  the  work 
force  as  long  as  somebody  has  to  stay  home 
to  mind  the  kids?  It  will  be  the  women  who 
are  forced  to  stay  home.  That  is  a  reality  un- 
less we  get  decent  day  care  and  make  it 
accessible  to  every  woman  and  every  family 
in  Ontario. 


4240 


'LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The   Acting  Speaker   (Mr.   MacBeth):   The 

honourable  member's  time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  realize  that.  I  just  want  to 
appeal  to  the  government.  They  have  blocked 
our  full  employment  bill  and  our  bill  on 
protection  of  workers  and  job  security.  Why 
can't  the  government  stop  paying  lip-service 
and  help  the  New  Democratic  Party  to  make 
Bill  157  a  reality  in  Ontario?  It  is  something 
that  has  essentially  been  proposed  by  their 
own  Ontario  Status  of  Women  Council.  It 
is  about  time  the  government  took  that  advice 
seriously  and  put  principle  ahead  of  partisan 
politics— 

The  Acting  Speaker:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber's time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —and  supported  economic 
equality  for  women.  It  is  about  time  that 
came  in  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr  Speaker,  I  wonder  if 
I  could  have  some  clarification  of  the  amount 
of  time  that  remains. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  The  member  for 
Kingston  and  the  Islands  has  five  minutes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  shall  have  to  abbreviate 
my  remarks  considerably. 

First,  I  would  like  to  join  in  the  remarks 
of  my  colleague.  I  do  not  think  any  member 
of  this  House  is  in  opposition  to  the  principles 
embodied  in  this  bill,  with  the  exception  of 
one  specific  principle  that  I  would  not  be 
supportive  of  for  very  practical  purposes.  It 
seems  to  me  the  honourable  members  must 
recognize  that  the  discipline  of  the  responsi- 
bility to  implement  and  execute  policy  and 
programs  in  this  province  really  does  charge 
one  with  the  necessity  to  assess  the  reality 
of  a  given  situation. 

What  is  overlooked  entirely  in  this  bill, 
unfortunately,  in  respect  to  day  care,  is  that 
if  one  were  to  choose  to  establish  or  en- 
shrine a  right,  one  also  must  move  to  estab- 
lish a  method  of  moving  to  achieve  that  im- 
mediately. I  suggest  to  the  honourable  mem- 
bers opposite  that  we  do  not  fail  to  recognize 
there  is  a  need  that  is  not  being  met  at  the 
moment.  I  have  indicated  that  on  numerous 
occasions.  What  I  think  is  important,  though, 
is  to  see  the  difference  in  the  approach.  We 
must  be  pragmatic  and  realistic. 

I  would  suggest  that  within  the  next  short 
period  of  time— over  the  next  three  weeks— 
I  will  be  making  a  series  of  announcements 
in  terms  of  the  initiatives  we  have  been 
working  on  and  planning  for  over  almost  the 
past  two  years.  This  will  have  a  significant 
impact  upon  day  care  in  this  province.  It  is 
unfortunate    I    am   not   in   a  position   today 


to  reveal  to  the  honourable  members  what 
that  is,  but  I  will  be  shortly.  I  think  the 
members  will  be  surprised  at  how  soon  they 
learn,  at  least,  the  first  indication. 

This  has  been  in  the  planning  for  some 
time;  it  is  not  a  response.  If  it  were  simply 
reactive,  I  can  assure  the  House  I  would 
have  done  it  before  now.  I  think  it  is  also 
important  we  bear  in  mind  that  this  province 
has  done  a  better  job  in  the  provision  of  day 
care  than  any  other  jurisdiction  in  North 
America.  Think  for  just  one  moment:  there 
is  in  Ontario  two  thirds  of  all  the  day  care 
spaces  available  in  Canada.  One  third  of  the 
population  is  served  by  two  thirds  of  the 
day  care  spaces  available.  That  is  only  com- 
parative. That  has  no  absolute  value,  but 
it  is  nevertheless  significant.  I  do  not  think 
one  should  ignore  that  when  commenting 
upon  what  we  have  managed  to  achieve  and 
what  we  are  going  to  continue  to  achieve  in 
this  area  in  the  province. 

The  rates  of  increase  may  not  have  met 
everyone's  expectations  over  the  last  two  or 
three  years  but,  at  a  time  when  other  juris- 
dictions were  faced  with  absolute  declines, 
we  continued  to  have  growing  numbers  of 
day  care  spaces  available  in  this  province. 
Honourable  members  and  the  people  of  this 
province  will  shortly  see  the  unfolding  of  our 
new  policy  and  its  practical  implementation 
in  this  province. 

I  think  it  is  wrong  to  suggest  the  imple- 
mentation of  a  right  enshrined  in  legislation. 
Even  if  the  member  were  in  office,  he  could 
not  meet  it.  To  achieve  what  he  is  suggest- 
ing may  well  cost  in  the  first  year  of  imple- 
mentation an  additional  $1  billion.  He  could 
not  find  it  and  I  cannot  find  it. 

We  must  be  responsible  and  move  in  a 
phased  way  to  achieve  our  objective.  That 
is   precisely  what  we  plan  to  do. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want  to 
wrap  up  very  quickly.  The  minister  pointed 
out  very  clearly  the  very  limited  nature  of 
the  legislation  that  is  now  in  place.  I  only 
wish  the  minister  could  have  spent  more 
time  with  us  during  the  hearings  last  Jan- 
uary and  February  so  he  would  have  more 
clearly  understood  the  inadequate  nature  of 
equal  pay  for  substantially  the  same  work. 
We  had  job  after  job  after  job  described  by 
person  after  person,  all  of  them  women, 
where  they  were  deprived  of  a  fair  and 
equitable  income  for  the  work,  the  skill, 
the  responsibility  and  the  effort  they  put 
forward. 

I  was  pleased  to  hear  the  minister  say 
he  did  not  think  any  member  in  this  House 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4241 


opposed  any  of  the  principles  in  this  bill. 
1  remind  the  minister  and  all  the  members 
of  the  government  party  that  to  block  this 
bill  is  a  rejection  of  those  principles.  This 
is  a  debate  on  second  reading  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  bill. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  This  matter  will  be 
voted  on  at  a  later  time. 

NUDE   ENTERTAINxMENT  PLACES 

Mr.  Williams  moved  resolution  39: 
That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the 
government  of  Ontario  should  take  further 
action  to  prevent  the  proliferation  and  in- 
discriminate location  of  restaurants,  taverns 
and  theatres  that  feature  nude  entertain- 
ment or  nude  waitresses  or  similar  forms  of 
inducement  to  customers  and  that,  in  par- 
ticular: 

1.  The  government  of  Ontario  should  in- 
troduce legislation  that  would  authorize  mu- 
nicipalities to  pass  bylaws  prohibiting  the 
establishment  and  operation  in  the  munic- 
ipality of  these  restaurants,  taverns  and 
theatres;  and 

2.  The  Attorney  General  should  request 
the  Minister  of  Justice  for  the  government 
of  Canada  to  introduce  legislation  strength- 
ening the  public  morals  provisions  of  the 
Criminal  Code  to  facilitate  prosecutions 
against  the  owners  of  these  restaurants, 
taverns  and  theatres. 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure  the 
substance  of  the  resolution  has  a  familiar 
ring  about  it,  and  so  it  should.  All  members 
of  this  Legislature  will  recall  that  as  recently 
as  the  spring  of  1978  we  engaged  in  a  very 
lively  debate  revolving  around  Bill  49,  an 
Act  to  amend  the  Municipal  Act.  That  piece 
of  legislation  had  a  twofold  purpose:  to  ex- 
tend existing  powers  of  municipalities  over 
body  rub  parlours  and  to  give  them  powers 
to  pass  bylaws  to  regulate  and  control  adult 
entertainment   parlours. 

It  is  self-evident  that  in  the  early  1970s 
and  the  latter  part  of  the  1960s,  the  business 
operations  in  our  society  that  cater  to  erotic 
and  sexual  appetites  or  inclinations  were 
very  much  on  the  rise.  Because  of  that  there 
was  a  public  outcry  that  demanded  govern- 
ment action.  For  this  reason,  therefore,  Bill 
49  came  before  this  Legislature  for  debate 
and  was  enacted  into  law.  That  particular 
piece  of  legislation  provided  that  bylaws 
may  be  passed  by  councils  of  all  munic- 
ipalities for  licensing,  regulating,  governing, 
classifying  and  inspecting  adult  entertain- 
ment parlours  or  any  class  or  classes  thereof 


and  for  revoking  or  suspending  any  such 
licence  and  for  limiting  the  number  of  such 
licences   to  be  granted. 


One  might  raise  the  question  as  to  why  it 
would  seem  necessary  to  debate  this  issue 
again  at  this  time,  so  soon  after  the  enact- 
ment of  the  legislation  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred. I  think  the  answer  is  obvious.  First, 
if  one  looks  at  the  federal  government's  in- 
volvement in  this  area  through  the  Criminal 
Code,  there  seems  to  have  been  a  marked 
degree  of  indifference  by  the  federal  au- 
thorities in  endeavouring  to  tighten  up  the 
morality  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code  to 
try  to  come  to  grips  with  these  types  of 
entertainment  facilities. 

Secondly,  at  the  municipal  level,  until  the 
enactment  of  the  Municipal  Amendment  Act 
in  1978,  municipalities  did  not  have  the  legal 
power  to  enact  bylaws  to  regulate  or  control 
the  operation  of  either  body-rub  parlours  or 
adult  entertainment  parlours. 

The  difficulty  we  have  before  us  at  this 
time  is  the  gathering  storm  clouds  we  see  on 
the  horizon  in  the  nature  of  the  legal  chal- 
lenges that  are  being  made  to  this  existing 
legislation.  While  this  government  has  to  be 
given  full  credit  for  the  initiatives  it  took  in 
bringing  in  Bill  49  in  1978  and  having  it  en- 
acted into  law,  it  appears  that  those  in  the 
industry  who  want  to  see  a  proliferation  and 
unlimited  operation  of  these  types  of  enter- 
tainment facilities  will  go  to  all  lengths  to 
try  to  strike  down  our  existing  laws.  While 
in  the  early  1970s  the  real  attention  seemed 
to  be  on  body-rub  parlours  in  the  inner  city— 
in  Metro  Toronto  in  particular— in  1980  the 
attention  is  being  given  to  this  unprecedented 
proliferation  and  indiscriminate  location  of 
adult  entertainment  parlours,  not  only  in  the 
suburbs  of  our  large  cities  but  in  the  small 
urban  communities  throughout  the  province. 

I  would  like  to  give  members  a  case  in 
point.  I  refer  to  my  own  city  of  North  York. 
There  are  no  less  than  21  applications  pend- 
ing at  this  time  for  restaurant  and  tavern 
licences  with  specific  requests  for  provision 
of  burlesque-type  entertainment.  One  of 
these  applications  relates  to  a  restaurant  and 
tavern  in  the  very  heart  of  Oriole  riding, 
located  in  a  small  plaza  within  yards  of  a 
neighbouring  church  and  two  high  schools, 
one  of  which  is  the  largest  high  school  facility 
in  North  York.  All  these  community  facilities 
are,  in  turn,  located  within  the  centre  of  one 
of  our  finest  residential  communities. 

In  speaking  to  Mr.  Gerry  Bird,  one  of  the 
teachers      at     Georges      Vanier      Secondary 


4242 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


School,  I  think  he  expressed  the  views  of 
many  of  the  teaching  staff  as  well  as  the 
students  when  he  questioned  the  propriety 
of  having  such  a  facility  located  in  the  heart 
of  our  residential  community.  Its  very  pres- 
ence would  reflect,  I  would  suggest,  on  the 
integrity  of  our  community.  I  give  credit  to 
people  such  as  the  Levines  and  the  Camp- 
bells living  on  Silas  Hill  Drive  in  Willowdale 
and  to  Mrs.  Lynne  Crawford  living  on  Good- 
view  Road.  These  are  people  who  have  been 
concerned  enough  to  bring  their  concerns  to 
the  local  city  council  and  their  elected  repre- 
sentatives at  the  local  level.  They  have  taken 
the  initiative  in  obtaining  petitions  from 
people  in  the  area  who  have  also  expressed 
dismay  and  concern  about  the  proposed  estab- 
lishment of  such  facilities  in  the  heart  of 
their  community. 

The  local  alderman,  Mrs.  Betty  Suther- 
land, because  of  these  concerns  and  her  own 
personal  concerns,  introduced  a  measure 
before  North  York  council  and  the  council 
in  its  wisdom  enacted  a  bylaw  which 
amended  zoning  bylaw  7625  in  North  York, 
which  would  limit  the  location  of  such  adult 
entertainment  parlours  to  areas  zoned  in- 
dustrial, provided  that  such  parlours  are 
located  at  least  500  metres  from  residential 
areas.  That  bylaw  was  enacted  in  September 
of  this  year. 

From  what  I  have  said  up  till  now,  it 
would  sound  as  rf  at  the  municipal  level  and 
at  the  provincial  level  we  have  matters  well 
in  hand  and  under  control.  Unfortunately, 
this  is  not  the  case.  That  is  primarily  the 
reason  why  I  am  here  today  with  this  resolu- 
tion before  the  Legislature.  While  the  local 
bvlaw  was  passed  by  North  York,  it  has 
taken  almost  nine  months  to  bring  that  legis- 
lation to  fruition.  At  the  staff  level,  con- 
siderable apprehension  has  been  expressed 
with  regard  to  the  validitv  of  such  a  local 
bvlaw.  Both  the  reports  from  the  planning 
commissioner  and  from  the  city  solicitor  of 
North  York  questioned  whether  the  type  of 
bylaw  that  was  eventually  enacted  by  the 
council  would  stand  up  in  the  courts.  They 
suggested  that  a  zoning  bylaw  is  to  control 
land  use  and  not  to  control  morality.  The 
city  solicitor  himself  has  expressed  concern 
as  to  whether,  if  challenged  in  the  courts, 
that  bylaw  would  stand  up. 

There  have  been  considerable  reports 
written  expressing  concern  at  this.  Now  we 
find,  over  and  above  these  concerns  being 
expressed  at  the  local  level,  the  operators  of 
these  type  of  facilities  have  challenged  our 
own   section    368(b)    in   the   courts.    As   we 


know,  there  are  now  two  cases  pending 
before  the  courts:  one  in  the  city  of  Toronto 
and  another  in  the  city  of  Hamilton.  By 
reason  of  the  fact  that  the  decisions  have  yet 
to  be  handed  down  on  those  cases,  I  won't 
go  into  the  merits. 

I  will  simply  point  out  for  the  record  the 
ba^is  on  which  our  existing  legislation  is 
being  challenged.  The  operators  of  the  two 
facilities  in  question  are  questioning  the  vires 
of  the  legislation.  In  other  words,  they  are 
asking  for  a  declaration  that  our  Municipal 
Act,  as  amended,  is  ultra  vires  the  province 
of  Ontario,  being  legislation  in  relation  to 
cnmlnal  law  as  well  as  other  relief.  Of 
course,  the  Attorney  General  has  responded 
a^d  has  intervened  in  this  matter  as  of  right, 
claiming  that  the  position  of  the  province  is 
that  the  legislation  is  intra  vires  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  province  of  Ontario. 

The  fact  is  that  our  laws  are  being  chal- 
lenged. It  appears  to  me  that  remedial  action 
must  be  contemplated.  If  the  courts  should 
decide  unfavourablv  with  regard  to  the  exist- 
ing laws,  I  would  suggest  that  immediate 
remedial  legislation  must  be  considered.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is  that  if,  for  whatever 
reason,  these  cases  before  the  courts  went  in 
favour  of  the  applicants,  it  would  appear  we 
would  have  to  fall  back  on  the  Criminal 
Code  as  the  sole  basis  for  governing,  con- 
trolling or  prohibiting  these  types  of  estab- 
lishments. 

5:10  p.m. 

I  would  suggest  that  such  an  application 
could  be  favourably  made  to  the  federal 
authorities  to  provide  this  type  of  enlighten- 
ed legislation.  We  do  have  existing  legis- 
lation under  the  Criminal  Code,  section  190, 
which  provides  that  they  can  delegate  ad- 
ministrative authority  to  the  province 
through  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council 
when  it  comes  to  gaming  and  lotteries.  I 
see  no  reason  why  such  a  course  of  action 
could  not  be  taken  with  regard  to  the  con- 
trol of  adult  entertainment  parlours  if  the 
need  was  determined  to  be  there. 

I  have  pointed  out  the  fact  that  there  is 
a  need  to  tighten  up  the  existing  legislation 
at  the  municipal  level  because  the  Municipal 
Act  is  being  challenged  and  because  the 
local  bylaws  that  have  been  enacted  or  pro- 
posed are  being  questioned.  It  seems  to  me 
that  if  we  do  have  to  resort  to  the  Criminal 
Code  as  the  basis  on  which  we  can  regulate 
and  control,  then  we  must  move  in  the  direc- 
tion I  have  suggested. 

With  regard  to  the  existing  provisions  of 
the  Criminal  Code,  notwithstanding  our  sue- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4243 


cess  in  maintaining  the  validity  of  our  legis- 
lation in  the  courts,  I  think  we  could  and 
should  still  go  to  the  federal  authorities 
and  ask  them  to  strengthen  those  provisions 
of  the  Criminal  Code,  which  would  give 
further  and  stronger  clout  to  what  we  have 
done  and  are  endeavouring  to  do  here  at 
the  provincial  level. 

Section  170  of  the  Criminal  Code,  the 
means  by  which  charges  are  laid  against 
operators  of  adult  entertainment  parlours, 
deals  with  the  attire  of  the  performers, 
waiters  or  waitresses  in  restaurants.  It  is 
under  that  provision  that  charges  can  be 
laid.  The  difficulty  is  that  there  are  two 
aspects  of  the  Criminal  Code,  under  section 
170,  dealing  with  nudity  that  could  be  im- 
proved upon.  First  and  foremost,  it  is  ludi- 
crous that  no  proceeding  shall  be  com- 
menced under  this  section  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Attorney  General.  I  think  one 
can  count  on  the  fingers  of  one  hand  the 
number  of  provisions  in  the  Criminal  Code 
and  in  civil  law  where  one  has  to  get  the 
consent  of  the  Attorney  General  before  he 
can  lay  an  information.  There  are  more 
serious  crimes  by  far  under  the  Criminal 
Code  where  one  does  not  have  to  go  to  the 
Attorney  General  to  get  his  permission  to 
lay  an  information  or  a  charge.  It  is  handled 
in  the  normal  process.  Why  here,  where  we 
have  a  minor  crime  by  comparison,  does  one 
have  to  have  the  consent  of  the  Attorney 
General? 

Further,  there  is  a  difficulty  under  the 
existing  section  in  that  the  charges  can  only 
be  laid  against  the  individual,  who  may  be 
charged  with  nudity  because  of  the  nature 
of  his  attire  or  lack  thereof.  There  is  no 
provision  in  the  existing  section  to  lay  the 
charge  directly  against  the  establishment, 
unless  the  person  who  is  being  charged  with 
nudity  is  prepared  to  lay  further  charges 
against  the  owner  or  manager  of  the  facility 
where  he  or  she  might  be  working. 

As  there  is  provision  elsewhere  in  the 
Criminal  Code,  it  seems  to  me  there  should 
be  a  reverse  onus  provision  in  the  Criminal 
Code  and  this  section  in  particular  would 
assume  that  the  owners,  managers  and  oper- 
ators of  these  facilities  have  the  knowledge 
and  have  given  the  consent  with  regard  to 
the  adult  entertainment  that  goes  on  within 
the  establishment. 

Here  are  two  ways  in  which  I  think  the 
Criminal  Code  could  be  tightened  up  and 
assist  us  in  the  province  to  try  in  a  more 
meaningful  and  stronger  way  to  regulate 
and  control,  if  not  prohibit,  the  proliferation 


and  indiscriminate  location  of  these  adult 
entertainment  parlours. 

If  we  can't  make  progress  in  those  particu- 
lar areas,  I  suggest  there  is  still  a  further 
course  of  action  we  might  take.  I  have  been 
referring  to  the  initiatives  of  the  Attorney 
General.  I  would  now  suggest  there  may  be 
initiatives  that  can  be  taken  through  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations. I  would  point  out  that  there  was  an 
adverse  decision  in  the  courts  back  in  1974 
in  the  case  of  MacLean  versus  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  of  Ontario.  While  the  board 
endeavoured  to  prohibit  such  a  facility  from 
operating,  it  was  decided  by  the  courts  that 
the  regulations  under  the  Liquor  Licence  Act 
did1  not  specifically  empower  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  of  Ontario  to  pass  judgement 
upon  entertainment  offered  in  facilities  of 
this  nature.  Specific  provisions  under  section 
45  also  did  not  cover  this  particular  point. 

I  would  suggest  that  there  may  be  room, 
through  the  regulatory  process  and  through 
the  Liquor  Licence  Act,  by  which  one  could 
consider  bringing  in  regulations  that  would 
pertain  to  how  persons  employed'  in  these 
licensed  premises  would  dress.  I  am  suggest- 
ing it  could  be  done  by  regulation.  It  has 
proved  successful  in  other  jurisdictions  in 
states  in  the  United  States.  I  understand  it 
has  in  the  states  of  California  and  New  York. 

It  seems  to  me  that  provision  could  be 
made,  if  not  totally  to  provide  the  board  with 
the  power  to  control  the  regulation  of  the 
type  of  entertainment  in  licensed  establish- 
ments, at  least  most  certainly  to  do  it  with 
regard  to  establishments  that  cater  to  minors, 
that  is,  the  dining  lounges  and  dining  rooms. 
I  would  point  out  that  the  Ontario  Hotel 
and  Motel  Association  as  well  as  the  Ontario 
Food  Services  Association  would  endorse  this 
type  of  regulation  and  control.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  to  me  that  of  the  400  licensed 
establishments  within  Metropolitan  Toronto, 
if  there  was  an  outright  prohibition  with  re- 
gard to  the  dining  lounges,  it  would  reduce 
by  about  70  per  cent  the  number  of  facili- 
ties that  could  provide  adult  entertainment 
and  limit  that  type  of  activity  to  the  other 
hundred  facilities  that  are  licensed  lounges 
and  not  dining  lounges.  As  we  know,  it  is  to 
the  licensed  dining  lounges  that  families  will 
come  to  have  meals  and  bring  their  children 
with  them,  while  the  licensed  lounges  are 
areas  that  are  reserved  for  adult  attendance 
only. 

It  would  be  a  great  step  forward  if  this 
kind  of  regulatory  enactment  was  considered. 
I  am  sure  initiatives  have  to  be  taken;  we 
have  to  be  prepared  for  the  problems  that 


4244 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


lie  before  us.  I  am  sure  the  further  initiatives 
of  this  government  will  ensure  that  there 
will  be  no  further  proliferation  or  inappro- 
priate location  of  these  facilities  throughout 
the  province. 

Mr.  Blundy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very  happy 
to  speak  on  this  resolution  before  us  this 
afternoon.  I  believe  in  the  spirit  that  is  em- 
bodied in  the  resolution  and  the  goal  it  is 
trying  to  achieve. 

5:20  p.m. 

The  resolution,  in  my  opinion,  is  not  going 
to  accomplish  very  much.  It  is  doing  what 
this  government  does  so  often,  that  is,  point 
to  other  levels  of  government  to  do  what  I 
consider  might  be  work  it  does  not  want  to 
do  itself.  The  resolution  gives  authorization 
to  municipalities  to  d'o  more.  It  is  pointing  at 
the  government  of  Canada,  through  the 
Minister  of  Justice  to  do  more.  I  believe  it  is 
rather  hypocritical  to  stand  up  and  present  a 
resolution  of  this  nature  on  such  a  very  im- 
portant matter.  The  principle  behind  the 
resolution  is  one  I  endorse  100  per  cent.  But 
I  do  not  like  the  government,  through  the 
member  for  Oriole  (Mr.  Williams),  bringing 
in  a  resolution  that  is  going  to  try  to  get 
other  levels  of  government  to  do  what  I  be- 
lieve this  government  should  try  to  do. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  afternoon 
this  private  members'  period  is  being  shared 
with  the  discussion  of  Bill  137.  I  know  there 
are  vast  differences  between  this  resolution 
and  that  bill  but,  in  my  view,  the  bill  is 
talking  about  the  economic  wellbeing  of 
women  and  affording  economic  opportunities 
to  women,  while  this  resolution  is  talking 
about  trying  to  do  something  to  prevent  the 
continued  and  increased  exploitation  of  wo- 
men. Therefore,  I  think  this  resolution  and 
the  previous  bill  have  some  views  in  common. 
I  think  both  the  bill  and  the  resolution  before 
us  now  are  trying  to  improve  the  position  and 
prestige  of  women  in  our  society. 

The  proliferation  of  these  entertainment 
enterprises  is  going  hand  in  hand  with  a 
substantial  decrease  in  respect  for  the  family, 
for  the  mother  and  so  forth.  That  may  be  an 
ideological  thing  for  many  people,  but  I 
submit  it  is  something  that  touches  every  one 
of  us.  Many  of  the  problems  today  that  are 
covered  by  Community  and  Social  Services 
are  with  us  because  the  family  and  women 
in  our  society  do  not  have  the  same  status 
they  had  years  ago.  I  know  it  sounds  old- 
fashioned,  and  it  is  hard  to  turn  back  the 
clock,  but  I  do  believe  we  should  mention 
these  points  in  our  discussion  of  this  re- 
solution today. 


What  do  I  suggest  we  do  about  this  type 
of  entertainment  in  restaurants  and  taverns? 
I  believe  a  great  deal  of  it  could  be  con- 
trolled by  the  government  through  its  liquor 
licence  board  and  through  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  I  be- 
lieve they  could  do  a  great  deal  to  reduce 
the  number  of  such  establishments. 

What  about  the  municipalities?  The  mem- 
ber for  Oriole  has  mentioned  the  locations 
in  which  these  establishments  are  springing 
up.  I  think  he  has  a  good  point  in  that  re- 
spect. Here  is  a  way  the  municipality  can 
become  involved  through  its  zoning  bylaws 
if  it  wants  to  do  it,  but  it  has  to  have  the 
will  to  try  to  do  it.  I  believe  this  government 
does  not  have  the  will  or  the  guts  to  do  what 
I  think  it  could  do  to  help  prevent  the  con- 
tinuation and  proliferation  of  entertainment 
parlours  that  are  being  discussed  today.  The 
municipalities  are  going  to  have  to  be  en- 
couraged to  have  that  desire  and  the  guts 
to  do  it  also,  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
location,  through  their  zoning  bylaws  and  so 
forth.  I  believe  some  very  good  points  have 
been  made  by  the  member  for  Oriole  in  re- 
spect to  the  fact  we  see  now  in  our  own 
municipalities  where  some  of  these  enter- 
tainment parlours  are  being  settled. 

They  should  not  be  in  residential  areas 
or  even  where  children  would  be  passing  by 
the  street  seeing  the  signs  and  pictures  on 
the  outside.  Not  only  are  they  a  nuisance,  but 
it  is  a  bad  situation,  and  the  municipalities 
should  try  to  curtail  it.  The  points  the  mem- 
ber has  made  about  strengthening  the  public 
moral  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code  are 
right  on.  I  believe  this  is  an  area  where  we 
could  certainly  see  some  very  great  improve- 
ment. I  would  do  everything  to  encourage 
that  to  be  done  at  the  federal  level. 

To  sum  up  my  few  words  in  participating 
in  this  debate  on  the  resolution,  I  abhor  the 
proliferation  of  these  kinds  of  parlours  in  our 
communities  and  residential  areas.  I  would 
like  to  see  them  curtailed,  but  I  say  all  three 
levels  of  government  have  a  part  to  play 
in  doing  so.  I  do  not  think  this  government 
should  give  up  its  responsibility  in  this  matter 
of  trying  to  pass  legislation  in  this  House 
that  will  help  control  the  proliferation  of 
entertainment  parlours  of  this  nature.  The 
government  is  not  without  blame.  I  will 
support  anything  it  brings  in  that  will  help 
to  decrease  the  incidence  of  these  kinds  of 
establishments  in  our  municipality. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  in 
support  of  the  resolution.  I  want  to  speak 
to    the    members    here    about    a    particular 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4245 


problem  I  have  had  in  my  own  constituency. 
It  happens  to  be  the  Metro  Theatre,  which 
is  located  at  Bloor  and  Manning. 

As  the  member  for  Oriole  says,  it  has 
been  a  disgrace  and  problem  for  people  in 
my  constituency.  It  is  located  in  the  middle 
of  a  residential  family  neighbourhood,  des- 
pite the  fact  that  it  is  on  Bloor  Street.  The 
streets  north  and  south  of  Bloor  are  resi- 
dential family  areas  occupied  by  people  with 
very  traditional  values,  which  I  happen  to 
share  and  respect.  I  think  people  have  a 
right  to  have  their  values  honoured  and  re- 
spected in  their  own  neighbourhood. 

We  have  had  a  problem  particularly  in 
Toronto  city  with  strip  joints.  What  we  are 
talking  about  is  how  to  deal  with  the  phe- 
nomenon of  a  proliferation  of  strip  joints, 
whether  they  are  theatres,  bars  or  whatever. 
Not  too  long  ago  there  was  a  time  when 
the  main  street  in  this  city  was  virtually  be- 
yond the  pale  for  people  with  families  or 
children.  They  could  not  walk  down  Yonge 
Street  because  of  the  body-rub  parlours  and 
strip  joints  of  all  kinds  and  varieties.  So 
there  was  an  effort  to  clean  up  Yonge 
Street,  and  that  was  achieved.  One  of  the 
consequences  was  the  problem  was  not 
really  solved  but  simply  dispersed  off  Yonge 
Street  and  into  the  midst  of  residential 
neighbourhoods  such  as  mine  and  the  area 
of  North  York  referred  to  by  the  member 
for  Oriole. 

Let  me  just  say  the  Metro  Theatre  is  a 
real  blight  in  our  community.  It  is  close  to 
a  high  school.  It  attracts  teenagers  who  are 
underage.  It  is  common  knowledge  that  the 
age  provisions  are  not  followed.  We  have 
the  additional  problem  of  the  customers  of 
the  Metro  Theatre  coming  into  the  commu- 
nity and  harassing  women  either  before  or 
after  they  go  into  the  performance.  It  has 
become  a  real  problem  in  our  community. 
I  have  had  numerous  complaints  and  peti- 
tions from  people  in  the  community  about 
this  kind  of  harassment. 
5:30  p.m. 

Having  said  that  I  share  the  concern  and 
support  the  resolution,  I  want  to  continue 
in  the  vein  of  the  member  for  Sarnia  be- 
cause this  government  is  as  much  responsible 
for  the  problem  as  anybody  else.  I  remember 
that  when  the  member  for  Scarborough  Cen- 
tre (Mr.  Drea)  became  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  he  shot  his  mouth 
off  ad  nauseam  about  how  he  was  going  to 
clean  up  the  topless  waitresses  and  how  he 
was  going  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  strip 
joints  by  dealing  with  topless  waitresses.  As 


soon  as  he  was  appointed  to  the  cabinet, 
what  did  he  do?  Well  he  shot  his  mouth 
off  and  shot  his  mouth  off  and  eventually 
did  absolutely  nothing.  What  he  should  have 
done  was  brought  in  amendments  to  the 
Employment  Standards  Act.  It  is  very  sim- 
ple. He  should  have  advised  his  cabinet  col- 
leagues that  the  one  way  to  deal  seriously 
with  the  problem  was  to  prohibit  any  em- 
ployer from  requiring  a  woman  as  a  con- 
dition of  employment  as  a  waitress  to  be 
topless.  That  would  have  solved  a  lot  of  the 
problem.  I  am  sure  the  member  for  Oriole 
knows  that. 

Let  me  speak  again  about  the  Metro  The- 
atre. This  place  is  operating  in  violation  of  a 
number  of  laws.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  has 
had  two  convictions  under  the  Criminal 
Code.  The  member  for  Oriole  talks  about 
the  need  for  strengthening  the  Criminal 
Code.  Here  is  a  theatre  that  has  had  two 
convictions  under  the  Criminal  Code  for 
indecent  performance.  What  happens?  These 
theatres  are  licensed  under  the  authority  of 
the  Theatres  Act  of  Ontario  which  is  en- 
forced by  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  through  the  censor 
board. 

Remember  Don  Sims?  Last  spring  after 
this  theatre  had  been  convicted  twice  for 
offences  under  the  Criminal  Code,  Don  Sims 
renewed  its  licence.  This  is  the  great  pro- 
tector of  public  morals  and  public  decencies 
who  is  all  hot  to  trot  when  it  comes  to 
artistic  films,  but  when  it  comes  to  a  pur- 
veyor of  smut  who  is  involved  in  violating 
the  Criminal  Code,  he  simply  signs  the 
paper  and  renews  the  licence.  I  ask,  where 
is  the  initiative  of  the  government  in  that 
respect?  All  I  see  is  a  fairly  large  degree  of 
hypocrisy  and  shirking  of  responsibility. 

Getting  back  to  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre,  he  did  not  amend  the  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act.  In  fact,  after 
making  all  those  bravura  promises  about 
what  he  was  going  to  do  to  clean  up  the 
strip  joints,  he  did  absolutely  nothing.  In 
desperation,  his  cabinet  colleagues  brought 
in  Bill  49,  which  simply  dumped  the  respon- 
sibility on  to  the  municipalities  and  made  it 
virtually  impossible  to  deal  with  the  problem. 

The  member  for  Samia  (Mr.  Blundy) 
mentioned  the  reality  that  the  problem  could 
be  dealt  with  under  the  authority  of  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  of  Ontario.  That  is 
not  being  done  either.  The  government 
hands  out  licences  to  the  strip  joint  operators 
with  great  abandon.  I  do  not  see  any  initia- 
tives coming  from  the  government  on  trying 
to  control  the  problem  in  that  area. 


4246 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Finally,  there  is  the  area  of  police  enforce- 
ment. I  do  not  know  how  many  times  we 
have  been  down  to  14  Division— myself, 
members  of  the  community,  alone,  separ- 
ately, together— to  try  to  get  the  police  to 
enforce  the  existing  provisions  of  the  Crim- 
inal Code  and  to  make  sure  that  people 
living  in  the  area  are  not  harassed  as  they 
walk  from  their  house  up  to  Bloor  Street  to 
go  shopping  or  to  go  to  church.  We  cannot 
get  consistent  police  enforcement.  If  the  At- 
torney General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  was  really 
concerned  about  this  problem,  in  his  capacity 
also  as  Solicitor  General,  he  might  have  some 
words  with  police  chiefs  about  ways  of  en- 
forcing the  existing  laws. 

I  am  not  sure  there  is  much  more  I  want 
to  say.  I  think  it  is  a  serious  problem.  Aside 
from  the  other  concerns  I  mentioned,  in 
terms  of  the  assault  on  the  values  of  people 
that  deserve  to  be  respected,  I  also  see  it  as 
a  form  of  blockbusting  that  is  taking  place 
in  a  number  of  communities.  I  do  not  have 
any  doubt  at  all  that  the  existence  of  strip 
joints  in  residential  neighbourhoods,  particu- 
larly in  the  inner  city  communities,  is  an 
excellent  way  to  destabilize  the  residential 
neighbourhood  and  make  it  ripe  for  block- 
busting developers  to  move  in  and  begin  the 
work  of  destroying  family  housing  in  favour 
of  different  kinds  of  development.  I  have  no 
doubt  at  all  that  is  part  of  the  phenomenon 
we  are  dealing  with. 

I  support  the  resolution  and  the  measures 
spelled  out  in  the  resolution,  but  I  also  want 
this  government  to  understand  clearly  it  has 
a  responsibility  to  deal  with  the  problem 
that  it  cannot  shirk  off  on  to  either  the 
municipalities  or  the  federal  government. 
Aga'n,  to  summarize,  it  has  the  authority 
under  the  Theatres  Act.  It  has,  through  the 
influence  of  the  Solicitor  General,  the  ca- 
pacity to  speak  to  law  enforcement  officials 
about  the  enforcement  of  existing  statutes.  It 
has  the  authority  to  control  under  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  of  Ontario.  None  of  these 
things  is  being  enforced  with  any  degree  of 
vigour  or  consistency  whatsoever.  I  hope  the 
House  will  support  the  member  for  Oriole's 
resolution  in  the  hope  it  will  bring  this 
serious  problem  to  the  attention  of  cabinet 
and  that  we  can  have  a  more  vigorous 
assault  on  what  is  a  serious  problem  in  many 
communities,  particularly  within  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto. 

Mr.  J.  Johnson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  have  this  opportunity  to  add  my  voice  to 
those  of  my  colleagues  in  support  of  this 
resolution    and1   also   to   pay   tribute    to    the 


member  for  Oriole  (Mr.  Williams)  for  bring- 
ing in  this  timely  and  commendable  resolu- 
tion. 

TTiis  government  and,  I  would  venture  to 
say,  nearly  all  members  of  this  assembly  have 
supported  the  restriction  of  establishments 
which  rely  on  nude  entertainment  to  bring 
in  patrons.  It  was  just  over  two  years  ago 
when  this  House  debated  amendments  to  the 
Municipal  Act.  At  that  time,  it  was  hoped 
the  legislation  would  reduce  the  number  of 
such  establishments  across  Ontario  but,  one 
year  later,  there  were  still  over  200  premises 
in  Toronto  alone  which  featured  some  form 
of  nude  entertainment.  Earlier  amendments 
went  far  in  controlling  adult  entertainment 
parlours  by  closing  down  many  of  the  body- 
rub  parlours  and  sex  shops.  There  still  exists 
a  number  of  other  facilities  which  citizens  of 
our  municipalities  wish  to  see  restricted.  It 
ought  to  be  the  responsibility  of  the  local 
governments,  which  best  know  the  immediate 
local  concerns,  to  control  the  establishment 
of  restaurants,  taverns  and  theatres  that  fea- 
ture nude  entertainment.  This  applies  not 
just  to  the  major  municipalities  in  our  prov- 
ince but  to  a  number  of  the  smaller  com- 
munities   as    well. 

We  witnessed  with  great  shock  and  sorrow 
the  impact  the  sex  industry  can  have  in  the 
murder  of  Emanuel  Jaques.  This  incident 
shook  as  large  a  community  as  Toronto.  Can 
one  imagine  the  effect  it  would  have  on  a 
smaller  community?  This  is  what  is  happen- 
ing. Certainly,  crackdowns  have  removed 
some  of  the  more  questionable  establishments 
from  Toronto's  downtown  core,  but  many  of 
them  have  moved.  Instead  of  heading  into  the 
city  centre,  one  can  bump  and  grind  in  even' 
Metro  borough.  Several  of  these  relocated 
taverns  and  restaurants  have  been  located 
close  to  residential  sections  or  schools.  Under 
the  act,  municipalities  can  regulate  their 
location  but  cannot  bar  them  from  entry. 

It  is  the  community  which,  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, shapes  the  development  of  our  citizens. 
Our  citizens  should  be  able  to  choose  the 
kind  of  environment  in  which  they  wish  to 
live.  They  should  be  able  to  regulate  what 
type  of  business  they  wish  their  children  to 
be  exposed  to.  I  am  not  suggesting  this 
assembly  attempt  to  legislate  morality  for 
this  province,  but  what  I  would  like  to  see  is 
the  ability  of  a  community  to  determine  its 
own  pattern  of  development— in  other  words, 
local  autonomy. 

Having  served  as  mayor  and  councillor  in 
my  own  community  for  several  years,  I  have 
a  tremendous  amount  of  respect  for  local 
councils  and  I  know  they  are  far  better  quali- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4247 


fied  than  any  other  level  of  government  to 
assess  what  is  in  the  best  interest  of  the 
people  they  represent.  If  they  are  mistaken, 
they  are  turfed  out  of  office  at  the  next  elec- 
tion, and  we  have  seen  some  of  that  happen 
in  the  last  few  days. 

5:40  p.m. 

The  real  concern  of  this  resolution,  as  I 
read  it,  is  to  allow  municipalities  a  legal 
means  of  blocking  establishments  which  a 
community  may  not  want.  A  community 
could,  if  it  so  desired,  prevent  sex-oriented 
businesses  not  only  from  locating  in  the 
downtown  core,  but  in  the  backstreets  and 
residential  neighbourhoods  as  well.  Several 
municipalities  have  been  fighting  to  keep 
these  taverns  and  restaurants  away  from  their 
neighbourhood  backyards.  Often  they  have 
not  had  the  necessary  clout  to  force  them  to 
move.  I  think  it  is  a  shame  when  a  munic- 
ipality, acting  in  its  collective  role,  cannot 
decide  what  type  of  entertainment  the  com- 
munity will  support. 

There  are  a  number  of  legal  points  raised 
by  this  resolution  but,  in  concert  with  the 
federal  government  and  the  municipal  repre- 
sentatives, they  are  points  which  can  be 
worked1  out.  The  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Mc- 
Murtry)  can  approach  the  federal  Minister 
of  Justice  to  make  changes  to  the  Criminal 
Code  which  would  facilitate  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Ontario  communities. 

We  are  aware  that  this  is  an  area  into 
which  we  enter  only  after  a  great  deal  of 
thought.  It  is  not  often  that  we  in  this  as- 
sembly  discuss  our  ability  to  constrain  any 
segment  of  our  society,  but  we  have  several 
questions  with  regard  to  this  industry  and  its 
establishment  across  Ontario.  The  aggressive 
marketing  of  some  of  its  supporters  may  not 
please  members  of  our  communities. 

My  principle  here  in  supporting  this  resolu- 
tion is  that  municipalities  throughout  this 
province  should  have  a  say  in  just  how  their 
communities  will  develop.  At  the  very  least 
it  will  give  them  the  opportunity  to  bring 
better  control  to  such  establishments.  No 
person  in  this  province  should  be  subjected 
to  having  these  establishments  thrust  upon 
him  if  the  community  is  opposed.  The 
municipal  representatives  may  best  decide 
each  community's  need  and  aspiration. 

In  conclusion,  I  feel  this  is  territory  which 
the  province,  together  with  both  municipali- 
ties and  the  federal  government,  can  enter. 
Together  we  can  help  ensure  communities 
which  are  safe  and  which  are  shaped  by  the 
individuals  who  live  there. 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  been  prevailed  upon. 
I  had  a  choice  between  the  members  for 
Halton-Burlington  (Mr.  J.  Reed),  Kitchener- 
Wilmot  (Mr.  Sweeney)  and  Ottawa  East  (Mr. 
Roy). 

Mr.  Roy:  It  was  a  toss-up,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  used  my  great  experience  and,  of  course, 
my  weight  within  caucus  to  override  my 
colleagues.  I  used  my  seniority  to  get  an 
opportunity  to  support  this  resolution. 

I  want  to  say,  as  my  colleague  the  mem- 
ber for  Sarnia  (Mr.  Blundy)  said  prior  to  me, 
that  we  are  in  support  of  anything  that  ap- 
pears to  be  against  sin,  sex  and  that  sort  of 
thing  and  in  support  of  the  resolution  as  such. 

It  is  with  some  trepidation  that  I  look 
at  some  of  the  provisions  within  the  reso- 
lution. I  find  it  a  bit  surprising,  considering 
the  author  of  the  resolution  and  knowing  the 
respective  jurisdictions  of  various  govern- 
ments, that  he  would  put  the  emphasis  on 
the  municipalities  to  curtail  the  proliferation 
of  such  establishments.  In  my  opinion,  the 
provincial  role  to  be  played  in  this  respect 
is  of  great  importance,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  is  where  it  has  to  be  played.  It  has 
to  be  played  at  the  provincial  level  rather 
than  trying  to  use  municipal  laws  to  curtail 
the  abuses  or  infringements  of  the  Criminal 
Code.  I  do  not  see  that  the  Criminal  Code 
has  to  be  amended.  In  fact,  the  present 
Criminal  Code,  if  it  was  only  enforced,  would 
probably  severely  curtail  the  proliferation  of 
these  establishments. 

The  other  thing  I  find  to  be  somewhat 
surprising  in  the  resolution  is  that  the  member 
for  Oriole— and  I  do  not  begrudge  the  fact 
he  brought  this  in— should  feel  obliged  to 
bring  this  resolution  to  the  House  at  this 
time.  It  was  only  a  few  years  ago  when  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations (Mr.  Drea)  was  sworn  in  that  he  gave 
a  direct  warning  to  the  public,  saying  that 
those  individuals  participating  in  nude  en- 
tertainment would  be  required  to  dress  up. 
Through  all  the  swearing  in  of  the  ministers 
at  that  time,  the  thing  that  made  the  head- 
lines was  the  comment  by  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  He 
said  that  from  now  on  things  in  this  province 
would  not  be  as  they  were  in  the  past  and 
nude  entertainers  were  going  to  have  to 
clean  up  their  act. 

I  find  it  somewhat  cynical  and  disappoint- 
ing that  after  the  minister  said  this  some 
two  years  ago,  the  member  for  Oriole  should 
be  obliged  to  bring  in  this  resolution.  Tacked 
on  to  the  resolution  should  have  been  some 
serious  condemnation  of  the  shallowness  of 


4248 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  threat  and  that  promise  of  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  If 
the  member  felt  the  necessity  of  bringing 
forward  such  a  resolution,  it  is  because  his 
colleague  the  minister  did  not  do  his  job,  and 
that  speaks  for  itself. 

I  also  find  regrettable  about  the  process 
that  is  going  to  take  place  here  this  after- 
noon that  part  of  this  resolution  indicates  that 
people  are  abusing  certain  individuals  in 
society.  It  is  an  abuse  of  females  to  perpe- 
trate the  spread  of  this  type  of  establish- 
ment. On  the  one  hand,  the  government 
wants  to  prohibit  that  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  is  a  bill  coming  up,  respecting 
economic  equality  for  women  in  Ontario, 
that  it  is  going  to  block.  The  government  is 
going  to  put  a  veto  on  that  bill. 

That  is  a  cynical  gesture  on  the  part  of 
government  members,  bringing  forward  this 
type  of  resolution  and  wanting  the  support 
of  the  Legislature  for  it.  We  will  support  it. 
At  the  same  time,  one  of  my  colleagues 
brings  forward  an  act  respecting  the 
economic  equality  of  women  in  Ontario,  but 
these  people  will  not  even  allow  this  bill  to 
come  to  a  vote.  The  same  people  who  will 
be  supoorting  this  resolution  Will  be  blocking 
this  bill. 

I  look  at  my  colleague  from  Ottawa  South 
(Mr.  Bennett)  who  is  shaking  his  head.  He 
does  not  understand  it  and  neither  do  we. 
We  think  the  government's  approach  to  the 
process  is  cynical  and  lacks  the  seriousness 
that  this  type  of  legislation  deserves.  Some 
priorities  those  members  have  over  there! 
They  want  to  prohibit  these  establishments, 
vet  they  do  not  care  sufficiently  for  the 
women  of  this  province.   Shame  on  them! 

In  closing,  I  want  to  say  that  if  the 
member  for  Oriole  is  embarrassed  this  after- 
noon by  the  process  that  takes  place,  he 
should  look  around  him  at  his  colleagues. 
That  is  what  is  going  on  here. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  participate  on  this  resolution,  this  con- 
voluted gobbledegook  we  have  before  us.  If 
the  member  for  Oriole  was  serious  about  this 
issue,  which  has  a  detrimental  impact  on  our 
communities,  why  did  he  not  first  put  it  in 
the  order  of  a  bill  and  not  a  resolution?  Why 
did  he  not  specify  some  controls  over  these 
establishments  in  residential  neighbourhoods? 

5:50  p.m. 

If  the  member  were  really  serious  about 
the  issue  embodied  in  this  gobbledegook,  he 
would  have  specified  that  these  places  of 
nude   entertainment  not  be   allowed  in  resi- 


dential communities.  It  is  as  simple  as  that, 
but  he  could  not  do  that.  Instead,  he  offers 
a  poor  apology  for  his  government's  lack  of 
action.  The  government  has  had  all  kinds  of 
opportunity  through  the  Solicitor  General, 
through  the  Theatres  Act  and  through  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  of  Ontario,  to  close 
down  disreputable  operations,  but  cabinet 
ministers  sit  idly  by  and  do  nothing.  Instead, 
they  put  the  member  up  to  this  sorry  excuse. 
He  should  be  ashamed  of  himself,  doing 
their  dirty  work  for  them,  which  will  get 
him  nowhere. 

WOMEN'S  ECONOMIC 
EQUALITY  ACT 

The  following  members  having  objected 
by  rising,  a  vote  was  not  taken  on  Bill  157: 

Auld,  Ashe,  Baetz,  Bennett,  Birch,  Brunelle, 
Cureatz,  Drea,  Eaton,  Elgie,  Gregory, 
Havrot,  Henderson,  Hodgson,  Johnson,  J., 
Kennedy,  Lane,  Leluk,  MacBeth,  Maeck, 
McCaffrey,  McCague,  Norton,  Parrott,  Pope, 
Ramsay,  Rotenberg,  Smith,  G.  E.,  Villeneuve, 
Walker,   Williams,   Wiseman-32. 

NUDE  ENTERTAINMENT  OUTLETS 

Mr.  Speaker:  Mr.  Williams  has  moved 
resolution  39. 

Those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye." 
Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 
In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 
Resolution  concurred  in. 

BUSINESS  OF  THE  HOUSE 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  pursuant  to 
the  standing  order,  I  would  like  to  indicate 
to  the  members  of  the  House  the  business  for 
the  rest  of  this  week  and  next  week. 

Tonight  we  will  have  the  statement  by  the 
Treasurer  and  a  reply  from  a  representative 
of  each  of  the  opposition  parties.  Tomorrow 
we  will  deal  first  with  third  readings  of  bills 
on  today's  Order  Paper  and  then,  with  the 
approval  of  the  House,  complete  all  the 
stages  of  Bill  181,  concerning  the  evictions  on 
Toronto  Islands.  Time  permitting,  we  will 
complete  consideration  of  Bill  169  and  then 
Bill  168. 

On  Monday,  November  17,  the  House  will 
consider  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs.  On  Tuesday,  November  18 
in  the  afternoon,  we  will  have  committee  of 
the  whole  House  on  Bill  182,  the  special  edu- 
cation bill.  In  the  evening  we  will  complete 
or  continue  Bill  182,  if  it  is  not  completed  in 
the  afternoon.   If  there  is  any  time  and  if 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4249 


they  have  not  been  completed  on  Friday,  we 
will  move  to  Bills  169  and  168. 

On  Wednesday  four  committees  may  meet 
in  the  morning:  the  select  committee  on 
plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment, 
and  the  standing  committees  on  general 
government,  resources  development  and  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  Three  committees  may 
meet  in  the  afternoon:  the  select  committee 
on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjust- 
ment and  the  standing  committee  on  social 
development  and  general  government. 

On  Thursday,  November  20,  we  will  have 
private  members'  ballot  items  35  and1  36 
standing  in  the  names  of  Mr.  Stong  and  Mr. 
Dukszta.  Next  Thursday  evening  we  will  con- 
clude the  debate  on  the  report  of  the  select 


committee  on  constitutional  reform.  On  Fri- 
day, November  21,  the  House  will  continue 
with  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  North- 
ern Affairs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  So  honourable  members  will 
be  aware,  just  before  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S. 
Miller)  begins  speaking  at  eight  o'clock,  to 
avoid  any  confusion,  the  Treasurer  wants  to 
share  copies  of  his  statement  with  all  mem- 
bers. Promptly  at  eight  o'clock  we  will  take 
a  few  moments  to  allow  the  pages  to  dis- 
tribute those  to  the  members.  After  that  is 
completed,  we  will  hear  whatever  it  is  the 
Treasurer  has  to  say.  That  will  be  the  pro- 
cedure we  will  take  at  eight  o'clock. 

The  House  recessed  at  5:56  p.m. 


ERRATUM 


No.  Page  Column  Line  Should  read: 

109  4177  1  7  Johnston,   R.   F.    (Scarborough  West  NDP) 


4250 


(LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4232) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

DEATHS  IN  PSYCHIATRIC 
HOSPITALS 

283.     Mr.  Breaugh:   Will  the  minister  list 
the  number  of  patient  deaths  in  psychiatric 


hospitals  for  the  years  1978,  1979,  and  the 
first  nine  months  of  1980?  (Tabled  October 
9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  following  deaths 
of  patients  in  psychiatric  hospitals  were  in- 
vestigated by  coroners  under  section  9(2)  (g) 
and  (j)  of  the  Coroners  Act: 


Accident 

Suicide 

Natural 

Total 

Year 

In 

hospital 

Transferred 

In  Hospital 

Transferred 

Total 

Deaths 

1978 

6 

0 

8 

1 

217 

232 

1979 

5 

0 

2 

0 

166 

173 

1980 

2 

1 

2 

0 

128 

133 

(8  months) 

Total 

13 

1 

12 

1 

511 

538 

284.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  minister  list 
the  number  of  inquests  called  for  and  recom- 
mendations made  by  coroners  for  patient 
deaths  in  psychiatric  hospitals  for  the  years 
1978,  1979  and  the  first  months  of  1980? 
(Tabled  October  9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  following 
number  of  inquests  were  called  and  recom- 
mendations made  relating  to  deaths  of  psy- 
chiatric hospital  patients: 

In-hospital  deaths 

resulted  in 

Year  Inquests  Recommendations 

1978  1  2 

1979  4  11 

1980  1  1 
(8 months)    (1  pending) 

Total  6  14 

ATTENDANCE  AT  CONFERENCE 

370.  Mr.  Bounsall:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  explain  why  an  Ontario  representa- 
tive was  not  sent  to  participate,  as  invited, 
to  the  Ontario  regional  conference  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Women  and  the  Law, 
held  in  Windsor,  October  24  and  25,  1980, 
to  discuss  the  association's  concerns  with  the 
proposed  constitutional  package,  especially 
inasmuch  as  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  of 
Saskatchewan,  the  federal  special  adviser  on 
the  status  of  women  and  family  relations 
from  the  federal  Department  of  Justice,  and 
the  counsel  to  the  continuing  committee  of 
ministers  on  the  constitution  from  the  At- 
torney General's  ministry  of  Manitoba,  all 
attended  and  participated  in  this,  the  first 
women's  conference  on  Women  and  the 
Constitution?   (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Although  representa- 
tives of  the  ministry  have  spoken  to  similar 
groups  on  the  subject  of  family  law  and  the 


constitution,  no  invitation  was  received  by 
the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General  to  send 
a  delegate  to  the  Ontario  regional  conference 
of  the  National  Association  of  Women  and 
the  Law. 

HIGHWAY  CONSTRUCTION 
EXPENDITURES 

372.  Mr.  Wildman:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  table  the 
following  information;  (1)  the  total  cost  to 
the  provincial  Treasury  for  the  construction  of 
the  St.  Joseph  Island  Bridge  on  Highway 
548;  (2)  the  total  expenditure  on  highway 
construction  and  reconstruction  projects,  ex- 
cluding the  construction  of  the  above-men- 
tioned bridge,  in  the  district  of  Algoma  in 
each  of  the  fiscal  years  1967,  1968,  1969, 
1970,  1971,  1972,  1973,  1974,  1975,  1976, 
1977?  (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  (1)  The  total  cost  for  the 
construction  of  the  St.  Joseph  Island  Bridge 
on  Highway  548  was  $2,353,611.  (2)  The 
total  expenditure  on  highway  construction 
and  reconstruction  projects  in  the  district  of 
Algoma,  excluding  the  cost  of  the  St.  Joseph 
Island  Bridge,   is  tabled  below: 


Year 

Expenditure 

1967 

$  5,236,741 

1968 

4,583,535 

1969 

5,381,247 

1970 

5,385,827 

1971 

3,534,264 

1972 

3,794,407 

1973 

3,855,404 

1974 

5,455,922 

1975 

14,582,107 

1976 

9,323,217 

1977 

7,906,950 

373.     Mr.  Wildman:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs   table  the  total  expenditure 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4251 


figures  for  highway  construction  projects  in 
the  district  of  Algoma  in  the  years  1978  and 
1979?  (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  The  actual  expenditures 
for  highway  construction  in  the  district  of 
Algoma  for  fiscal  years  1978-79  and  1979-80 
were  $6,128,018  and  $4,974,119  respectively. 

OISE  AFFILIATION 

382.  Mr.  Isaacs:  Are  Ministry  of  Educa- 
tion or  Ministry  of  Colleges  and  Universities 
officials  involved  in  discussions  between  the 
Ontario  Institute  for  Studies  in  Education, 
the  University  of  Toronto  and  York  Univer- 
sity concerning  a  possible  change  in  the 
status  of  the  affiliation  agreement  between 
OISE  and  U  of  T?  Will  the  minister  give  an 
assurance  that  there  will  be  no  change  in 
the  status  of  the  present  OISE  affiliation 
until  there  has  at  least  been  an  opportunity 
for  full  and  open  public  debate?  (Tabled 
October  28,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Officials  of  neither 
the  Ministry  of  Education  nor  the  Ministry 
of  Colleges  and  Universities  are  involved  in 
discussions  between  the  Ontario  Institute  for 
Studies  in  Education  and  the  University  of 
Toronto. 

These  two  institutions  signed  a  "Memor- 
andum for  Negotiations"  for  a  new  "Agree- 
ment of  Affiliation,"  and  it  states  that  "these 
negotiations  will  conclude  on  or  before  March 
15,  1981."  If  the  institutions  cannot  agree  by 
then  on  a  new  affiliation  agreement  "they 
will  immediately  inform  the  Minister  of  Col- 
leges and  Universities  ...  of  their  inability 
to  agree  .  .  .  ." 

There  has  been  no  request  for  participa- 
tion by  the  ministries  and  because  both  insti- 
tutions are  autonomous,  it  would  be  inap- 
propriate for  me  to  become  involved  without 
an  invitation  from  the  institutions.  I  am  con- 
fident that  a  new  agreement  can  be  reached1. 

Public  debate  on  the  future  of  the  affili- 
ation will  take  place  both  in  the  governing 
council  of  the  University  of  Toronto  and  in 
the  board  of  OISE. 

FBA  STUDENTS 

383.  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  How  many 
FBA  recipients  were  enrolled  in  post-second- 
ary educational  institutions  in  Ontario  in 
the  school  years  1978-79  and  1979-80,  and 
how  many  have  enrolled  this  fall?  (Tabled 
October  28,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  Ministry  of 
Colleges  and  Universities  gathers  statistics 
on   enrolment  only.    No  information  on   "in- 


come background"  is  requested  from  the 
students  unless  they  submit  applications  for 
OSAP. 

FRANCOPHONE  ENUMERATION 

385.  Mr.  Martel:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Education  indicate  the  cost  to  the  ministry 
of  carrying  out  enumeration  of  the  franco- 
phone community  this  fall  for  school  boards? 
(Tabled  October  29,  1980.) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  following 
costs  have  been  incurred  to  November  4, 
1980,  by  the  Ministry  of  Education  in  carry- 
ing out  the  identification  of  French-speaking 
electors  for  school  boards: 

Printing,  including  design,  typesetting  and 
newspaper  notices,  $24,444;  distribution, 
postage  and  handling,  $9,974;  payment  to 
enumerators,  $24,960;  processing  returns,  in- 
cluding statistical  and  clerical  costs,  $16,272; 
total,  $75,650. 

MUNICIPAL  ENERGY  FROM 
WASTE  PROJECTS 

386.  Mr.  Isaacs:  For  each  of  the  energy 
from  municipal  waste  projects  listed  in  figure 
6  (page  10)  of  Energy  From  Waste  (Min- 
istry of  Energy,  March  1980),  will  the  min- 
istry provide  a  progress  report?  Will  the 
ministry  include,  where  applicable,  names  of 
all  eligible  equipment  suppliers  and/or 
equipment  suppliers  with  whom  contracts 
have  already  been  signed,  either  by  the  min- 
istry or  by  other  parties  involved  in  the 
project?    (Tabled  October  30,   1980.) 

See  sessional  paper  282. 

INTERNATIONAL  YEAR  OF 
DISABLED  PERSONS 

387.  Mr.  Roy:  Would  the  Premier  give 
an  accounting  of  funds  and  any  other  re- 
sources that  will  be  allocated  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  during  the  International 
Year  of  Disabled  Persons?  Which  govern- 
ment ministries  will  be  participating  in  dis- 
bursing these  funds?  How  will  these  funds 
be  put  to  use?  What  consultation,  if  any,  has 
taken  place  with  the  handicapped  community 
in  developing  priorities  for  spending  during 
the  International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons? 
(Tabled  October  30,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  The  year  1981  is  the 
International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons.  The 
allocation  process  for  the  1981-82  fiscal  year, 
which  includes  IYDP  projects,  has  not  been 
completed. 

An  office  of  the  provincial  co-ordinator  for 
the    International   Year   of   Disabled   Persons 


4252 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


has  been  established  within  the  Secretariat 
for  Social  Development.  The  co-ordinator 
chairs  an  interministerial  committee  with 
representatives  from  18  ministries,  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Board  and  the  Civil 
Service  Commission. 

Consultations  are  ongoing  between  min- 
istries and  groups  and  individuals  represent- 
ing disabled  people.  The  Ontario  Advisory 
Council  on  the  Physically  Handicapped, 
which  was  set  up  five  years  ago  to  advise 
government,  has  representation  from  all 
regions  of  the  province.  The  council  has  held 
six  public  forums  to  involve  the  broader 
community. 

The  IYDP  co-ordinator  consults  with  the 
Ontario  Federation  for  the  Physically  Handi- 
capped, a  co-ordinating  body  of  approximately 
30  agencies  and  consumer  groups.  In  addi- 
tion, the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  has  met  with  prominent  mem- 
bers of  the  disabled  community  at  a  series 
of  dinners. 

(Ministries  are  now  developing  programs  for 
the  year.  Announcements  will  be  forthcoming 
by  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Devel- 
opment and  the  ministers   concerned. 

GOVERNMENT  COMPUTER 
SERVICES 

394.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Minister 
of  Government  Services  indicate  whether  or 
not  government  computer  services  are  leased 


to  riding  associations  of  government  members 
for  constituency  mailings  or  fund-raising 
mailings?  If  they  are  used,  what  fee  is 
charged  for  the  service  provided?  (Tabled 
November  4,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  The  Ministry  of  Gov- 
ernment Services  does  not  lease  government 
computer  services  to  riding  associations  of 
government  members  for  constituency  mail- 
ings or  fund-raising  mailings. 

INTERIM  ANSWERS 

On  question  376  by  Mr.  Breaugh,  Hon. 
Mr.  Timbrell  provided  the  following  answer: 
Due  to  the  volume  of  Order  Paper  questions 
directed  to  the  Ministry  of  Health,  a  response 
will  be  tabled  on  or  about  December  1, 
1980. 

On  questions  377  to  379  by  Mr.  Breaugh, 
Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell  provided  the  following 
interim  answer:  Due  to  the  large  amount  of 
information  requested  in  the  above  questions, 
it  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  answers  by 
November  7,  1980.  A  complete  response  will 
be  tabled  on  or  about  December  1,  1980. 

On  question  384  by  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston, 
Hon.  Miss  Stephenson  provided  the  follow- 
ing interim  answer:  We  require  additional 
time  to  prepare  our  response  to  the  above 
question.  The  answer  will  be  ready  for 
tabling  on  or  about  Thursday,  November  20, 
1980. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980  4253 


CONTENTS 


Thursday,  November  13,  1980 

Point  of  privilege  re  access  to  legislative  building:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  4211 

Toronto  Island  homes,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells  ■ 4211 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott 4212 

Community  services  contribution  program,  statement  by  Mr.  Bennett  4212 

Point  of  privilege  re  mini-budget:   Mr.  McClellan,  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.   Foulds,  Mr. 

T.  P.  Reid,  Mr.  Cassidy 4215 

Liquid    industrial    waste,    questions    of    Mr.    Parrott:    Mr.    S.    Smith,    Mr.    Cassidy, 

Mr.    Swart 4216 

Rest  homes,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Warner  4219 

Stratford  Festival,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Cassidy  4220 

Day  care,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Ms.  Gigantes  4220 

Constitutional  reform,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Roy,  Mr.  Cassidy  4222 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Swart  4223 

Community  services  contribution  program,  question  of  Mr.  Bennett:   Mr.  J.  Johnson  4224 

Land  severance,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Riddell  4224 

Minimum  wage,  question  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Samis  4224 

Investment  companies'  failure,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Breithaupt  4225 

Industrial  hearing  loss,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Martel  4225 

Burlington  gas  explosion,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Bradley  4225 

Affirmative  action  programs,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Bounsall  4226 

Southwestern    Ontario    development    corporation,    questions    of    Mr.    Grossman:    Mr. 

B.   Newman 4226 

Keating  Channel  dredging,  question  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Ms.  Bryd'en  4227 

Re  point  of  privilege  on  mini-budget:  Mr.  Grossman 4227 

Point  of  privilege  re  Speaker's  rulings:   Mr.  Sargent 4228 

Point   of   privilege   re   mini-budget:    Mr.    T.    P.    Reid,    Mr.   Gregory,    Mr.    McClellan, 

Mr.   Grossman,   Mr.   Di  Santo 4228 

Notice    of    dissatisfaction    with    answer   to    oral    questions    re    PCB    spill    at    school: 

Mr.   Foulds    4229 

Legislative   pages    4229 

Petition  re  control  of  tips:   Mr.  Mackenzie  4229 

Report,  standing  committee  on  resources  development:  Mr.  Villeneuve  4229 

Report,  standing  committee  on  administration  of  justice:  Mr.  Philip  4230 


4254  (LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 

Motion  re  committee  sitting,  Mi.  Wells,  agreed  to  4230 

Motion  re  committee  substitution,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  4230 

Toronto  Islands  Act,  Bill  181,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4230 

Municipality   of   Metropolitan    Toronto   Amendment    Act,    Bill    182,    Mr.    Wells,    first 

reading 4231 

Dog  Licensing  and  Live  Stock  and  Poultry  Protection  Amendment  Act,  Bill  183,  Mr. 

Henderson,   first  reading 4231 

Sheep  and  Wool  Marketing  Act,  Bill  184,  Mr.  Henderson,  first  reading  i4231 

Assessment  Amendment  Act,  Bill  185,  Mr.  Maeck,  first  reading  4231 

Bruce  County  Board  of  Education  and  Teachers  Dispute  Resolution  Act,  Bill   186, 

Mr.    Sargent,   first  reading    . 4231 

Point  of  order  re  Toronto  Island  homes:  Mrs.  Campbell  4232 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  283,  284,  370,  372,  373,  376,  377-379,  382,  384,  385-387, 

394  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  4232 

Private  members'  business  re  Women's  Economic  Equality  Act,  Bill  157,  on  second 
reading: 

Mr.    Charlton 4232 

Mr.    Elgie 4235 

Mrs.    Campbell    4236 

Mr.    Cassidy 4237 

Mr.    Norton    4240 

Mr.    Charlton 4240 

On  resolution  39,  re  nude  enter cainment  places: 

Mr.  Williams   4241 

Mr.   Blundy   4244 

Mr.    McClellan    4244 

Mr.   J.  Johnson 4246 

Mr.  Roy ',"..  4247 

Mr.  Warner 4246 

Resolution  39   concurred  in ., 4248 

Business  of  the  House:  Mr.  Wells 4248 

Recess 4249 

Erratum      4249 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Deaths  in  psychiatric  hospitals,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Breaugh  4250 

Attendance  at  conference,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Bounsall  4250 

Highway   construction   expenditures,    questions    of    Mr.    Snow    and    Mr.    Bernier: 

Mr.  Wildman  4250 

OISE  affiliation,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Isaacs  4251 

FBA  students,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston  ,  4251 

Francophone  enumeration,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Martel  4251 

Municipal  energy  from  waste  projects,  question  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Isaacs  4251 

International  year  of  disabled  persons,  questions  of  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Roy  4251 

Government  computer  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Van  Home  4252 

Interim  answers:  Mr.  Timbrell,  Miss  Stephenson 4252 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980  4255 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Bennett,  Hon.  C;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Blundy,  P.  (Sarnia  L) 

Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Charlton,  B.  (Hamilton  Mountain  NDP) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Di  Santo,  O.  (Downsview  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Gigantes,  E.  (Carleton  East  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Johnson,  J.  (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel  PC) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP) 

Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 

Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 


No.  112 


Legislature  of 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  November  13,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can   be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  ( 416 )  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  9th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4259 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  MEASURES 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  will  allow  a  brief  period 
of  time  for  the  pages  to  distribute  the  state- 
ment to  be  made  by  the  Treasurer. 

Pursuant  to  an  order  and  the  motion  passed 
earlier,  we  will  now  revert  to  statements. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my 
budget  message  in  April,  I  said  1980  could 
well  turn  out  to  be  a  difficult  year  for  the 
Ontario  economy.  I  pointed  out  that  our 
economic  prospects  are  heavily  influenced  by 
federal  policy  and  the  performance  of  the 
United  States  economy.  Slowing  demand  in 
the  US  and  Ottawa's  high  interest  rate  policy 
threatened  to  undermine  our  economic 
stability. 

The  fiscal  strategy  for  1980-81  I  adopted  at 
that  time  called  for  a  modest  increase  in  the 
province's  deficit  and,  consequently,  a  pause 
in  our  long-term  deficit  reduction  plan.  In  the 
light  of  the  economic  situation,  I  did  not 
wish  the  budget  to  be  a  drag  on  the  economy 
and  therefore  I  did  not  impose  any  increases 
in  taxes. 

But  neither  did  I  want  to  break  with  our 
policy  of  reducing  the  size  of  government  to 
lessen  inflationary  pressures  in  the  economy 
and  free  up  resources  for  productive  private 
sector  investment.  By  maintaining  a  com- 
petitive and  stable  profit  and  taxation  environ- 
ment, we  ensure  these  resources  are  put  to 
use.  This  fiscal  policy  has  been  the  corner- 
stone of  our  economic  strategy  for  a  number 
of  years. 

In  my  budget  I  introduced  a  number  of 
selective  measures  to  stimulate  job  creation 
and  investment  and  I  have  since  supple- 
mented these  actions.  For  example,  in  May 
the  government  provided  a  substantial  in- 
terest relief  program  for  farmers.  My  budget 
also  provided  new  grants  for  pensioners  that 
increase  their  purchasing  power  this  year  by 
almost  $300  million. 

I  have  continued  to  monitor  closely 
developments  in  the  economy.  Prior  to  the 
federal  budget,  the  short-term  economic  out- 
look had  already  deteriorated.  That  budget 
has,  in  fact,  further  worsened  the  outlook  for 
Ontario.  Therefore,  I  will  be  announcing  to- 


Thursday,  November  13,  1980 

night  specific  measures  to  stimulate  imme- 
diately the  provincial  economy  and  improve 
Ontario's  longer-term  economic  prospects. 

On  October  28,  1980,  the  federal  govern- 
ment turned  back  the  economic  clock  in  the 
industrialized  provinces  of  Canada.  Mr.  Mac- 
Eachen's  "energy  budget"  was  seriously  lack- 
ing in  economic  leadership  and  it  completely 
ignored  the  dualistic  nature  of  Canada's 
regional  economies. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  If  I  ever  go  back  to 
schoolteaching  I  do  not  know  what  I  am 
going  to  do;  I  am  so  used  to  the  classroom 
talking. 

At  the  present  time,  Canada  has  neither  an 
agreed-upon  energy  pricing  and  supply 
package  nor  an  economic  strategy  to  take 
advantage  of  our  opportunities.  This  situation 
can  only  further  undermine  the  confidence  of 
investors  and  could  cost  us  dearly  in  the 
longer  run  in  lost  economic  productivity  and 
potential. 

Unlike  some  in  this  Legislature,  I  was 
surprised  and  disappointed  by  Mr.  Mac- 
Eachen's  budget.  It  is  profoundly  unbalanced 
in  its  priorities.  It  does  set  out  a  four-year 
deficit  reduction  plan,  but  it  is  far  from  clear 
that  the  fat  will  be  cut  from  the  federal 
bureaucracy.  Its  economic  forecast  implies 
sluggish  economic  performance  for  Canada's 
industrial  heartland,  but  no  measures  are 
introduced  to  improve  the  outlook.  It  rein- 
forces inflationary  pressures,  yet  relies  on  a 
tired  and  outdated  monetary  policy  that 
simply  cannot  come  to  grips  with  inflation. 
Above  all,  it  does  absolutely  nothing  to  create 
jobs  in  the  months  ahead.  In  fact,  it  threatens 
existing  jobs  in  this  province.  That  is  simply 
not  good  enough. 

Ontario  has  always  advocated  strong  federal 
leadership  in  economic  matters.  We  will  not, 
however,  tolerate  serious  economic  misdirec- 
tion at  the  expense  of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

The  most  vital  element  of  national 
economic  leadership  is  the  provision  of  long- 
term  policy  guidance  and  certainty.  Unfor- 
tunately, the  federal  budget  leaves  many  un- 
certainties. Even  if  the  planned  energy  prices 
survive,  they  remain  subject  to  unspecified 
future  increases.  The  delays  in  megaprojects 


4260 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


and  threatened  cutbacks  in  domestic  oil 
supplies  further  add  to  uncertainty  and  ag- 
gravate our  economic  problems.  Indexation 
of  the  personal  income  tax  remains  under  the 
microscope.  As  well,  the  federal  government 
intends  to  seek  major  savings  in  its  commit- 
ments under  existing  fiscal  arrangements  in 
health,  postsecondary  education  and  com- 
munity services. 
8:10  p.m. 

At  this  point,  recent  events  force  me  to 
diverge  from  the  printed  text.  Only  yesterday 
the  federal  government  officially  announced 
its  unilateral  termination  of  the  federal- 
provincial  community  services  contribution 
program  even  though  both  levels  of  govern- 
ment are  firmly  committed  to  converting  the 
existing  program  into  a  long-term  arrange- 
ment. As  a  result  of  this  action  alone,  Ontario 
will  lose  at  least  $86  million  annually  towards 
high-priority  and  fully  planned  water  and 
sewage  projects  and  other  vital  community 
services. 

This  thoughtless  action  clearly  illustrates 
that  we  have  a  national  government  that 
tolerates  high  unemployment,  stifling  interest 
rates  and  a  bloated  federal  bureaucracy  while 
seeking  savings  at  the  expense  of  a  clean 
environment  and  other  social  priorities.  Its 
actions  undermine  our  confidence  in  other 
cost-sharing  commitments  relating  to  health, 
post-secondary  education,  social  services  and 
social  assistance. 

We  require  a  national  economic  plan.  As 
part  of  this,  the  major  energy  projects  must 
proceed  and  Ottawa  must  take  firm  action  to 
shore  up  the  sagging  economy,  create  jobs 
and  restore  confidence.  Let  me  repeat  what  I 
have  stated  on  several  occasions.  The  federal 
government  has  the  fiscal  capacity  and  the 
policy  instruments  to  best  undertake  such 
action.  It  also  has  that  responsibility.  As  a 
result  of  the  clear  abdication  by  Ottawa  of  its 
national  economic  leadership  responsibility, 
we  are  faced  with  a  justified  call  for  economic 
leadership  from  elsewhere. 

The  government  of  Ontario  is  responding 
to  this  call  with  a  $1 -billion  five-year 
economic  recovery  program  which  I  am  going 
to  detail  in  a  few  minutes.  Before  so  doing, 
I  would  first  like  to  review  the  economic 
situation  and  outlook. 

The  federal  budget  threatens  Ontario's 
short-term  economic  prospects.  According  to 
Mr.  MacEachen's  projections,  Canada  will 
experience  a  decline  of  one  per  cent  in  total 
output  this  year  and  an  increase  of  only  one 
per  cent  in  1981  before  achieving  substan- 
tially higher  rates  of  growth  in  the  1982  to 
1985  recovery  period.  While  the  federal  out- 


look for  1981  is  more  pessimistic  than  many 
private-sector  predictions,  there  is  no  doubt 
our  economy  will  continue  to  operate  well 
below  potential.  The  federal  budget  certainly 
has  increased  the  possibility  of  greater  un- 
employment in  Ontario  in  the  months  ahead. 

There  are  certain  aspects  of  the  Ontario 
economy  with  which  we  can  be  very  pleased- 
strong  sectors  of  the  economy  where  employ- 
ment levels  are  being  sustained  or  are  even 
increasing  and  upon  which  strength  we  can 
build.  Among  them  are  the  nonresidential 
construction,  services,  manufacturing  of 
machinery,  paper  and  allied  products,  food 
and  beverages,  all  of  which  show  little  excess 
capacity.  Investment  is  increasing  at  a  sub- 
stantial pace  across  a  wide  range  of  sectors. 
Statistics  Canada's  Mid-Year  Private  and 
Public  Investment  Survey  indicates  new 
manufacturing  investment  may  be  up  by  44 
per  cent  in  Ontario  this  year. 

However,  some  sectors,  particularly  con- 
sumer durables  and  those  with  high  export 
content,  are  suffering  because  of  the  recession 
in  the  US  and  high  interest  rates.  There  have 
been  significant  layoffs  in  residential  con- 
struction and  in  the  motor  vehicle  assembly 
and  parts  industries.  The  major  household 
appliance  portion  of  the  electrical  products 
sector  is  performing  much  below  capacity. 
Other  important  manufacturing  industries 
showing  high  excess  capacity  are  wood  prod- 
ucts, furniture  and  fixtures,  and  non-metallic 
minerals. 

Notwithstanding  weakness  in  some  indus- 
tries, Ontario's  recent  job  creation  perform- 
ance has  been  impressive.  In  1979,  161,000 
new  jobs  were  created  following  the  genera- 
tion of  133,000  in  1978. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  How  many  were  laid 
off? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Those  are  the  nets,  my 
friend. 

Although  slowing  in  recent  months,  new 
job  creation  still  amounted  to  a  significant 
85,000  over  the  12-month  period  ending 
September  30.  While  our  average  year-over- 
year  new  job  creation  exceeds  over  100,000 
new  jobs  commitment,  we  are  neither  satis- 
fied nor  complacent.  The  bottom  line  is  that 
the  labour  force  growth  has  outstripped  job 
creation.  The  seasonally  adjusted  unemploy- 
ment rate  has  increased  from  6.2  per  cent  in 
September  1979  to  6.7  per  cent  in  September 
this  year.  In  fact,  over  the  first  nine  months 
of  1980,  the  unemployment  rate  has  averaged 
7.0  per  cent,  and  that  is  unacceptably  high 
in  terms  of  economic  hardship  and  lost 
potential. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4261 


I  believe  effective  action  can  and'  should 
be  taken  to  bolster  demand  in  the  weaker 
sectors  of  the  economy.  Our  options  in 
Ontario  are  limited  because  reductions  in  in- 
come taxes  are  not  a  viable  mechanism  for 
achieving  immediate  relief  in  specific  sectors. 
However,  in  the  past,  reductions  in  retail 
sales  tax  have  proved  to  be  most  effective.  I 
am  therefore  proposing  tonight  to  cut  the  re- 
tail sales  tax  to  provide  direct  stimulus  in  a 
number  of  areas  vitally  important  to  the 
wellbeing  of  our  economy. 

The  Ontario  automotive  industry  is  re- 
sponsible directly  and  indirectly  for  one  job  in 
every  six  jobs  in  this  province.  As  the  hon- 
ourable members  are  aware,  this  North 
American  industry  must  resolve  major  struc- 
tural difficulties  and  come  to  grips  with  vigor- 
ous foreign  competition  before  we  can  be 
certain  of  improved  prospects.  This  govern- 
ment has  urged  the  federal  government  to 
seek  a  better  deal  for  Canada  under  the  auto 
pact.  We  have  also  provided  incentives  for 
industry  to  locate  here,  expand  investment 
and  engage  in  research  and  development.  A 
large-scale  review  of  the  industry's  prospects 
and  problems  is  now  under  way  to  determine 
what  more  Ontario  can  do  to  secure  the  in- 
dustry's longer-term  future.  In  the  meantime, 
however,  we  intend  to  take  action  to  stimulate 
the  industry. 

In  current  circumstances,  measures  to 
stimulate  demand  for  passenger  automobiles 
would  not  provide  a  significant  enough  boost 
to  domestic  employment  to  justify  the  ex- 
penditure. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  didn't  last  time  either. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  It  was  a  different 
problem  last  time. 

Many  of  the  passenger  cars  purchased  by 
Ontarians  are  produced  in  the  US.  Con- 
versely, our  production  of  passenger  vehicles 
is  predominantly  exported  to  the  US.  As  a 
result,  only  the  recovery  of  demand  in  the 
US  will  generate  substantial  production  and 
employment  gains  for  Ontario  producers  of 
passenger  cars. 

This  is  not,  however,  the  case  with  light 
trucks  and  vans.  Sixty  per  cent  of  Canadian 
unit  sales  of  these  vehicles  are  domestically 
produced,  the  balance  being  produced  in  the 
US  or  offshore.  All  light  trucks  and  vans 
produced  in  Canada  are  manufactured  in 
Ontario.  Consequently,  stimulation  of  truck 
purchasers  will  result  in  a  much  smaller  im- 
port leakage  and,  therefore,  will  have  a 
stronger  impact  directly  on  vehicle  production 
and  indirectly  on  the  many  associated  in- 
dustries. 


In  Ontario,  truck  production  over  the  first 
10  months  of  this  year  was  24  per  cent  below 
last  year's  levels,  and  sales  were  down  almost 
25  per  cent  from  January  to  September  com- 
pared with  the  same  period  last  year.  Con- 
sequently, to  provide  support  to  this  sector,  I 
am  implementing  a  rebate  of  retail  sales  tax 
paid  of  up  to  $700  on  new  light  trucks  and 
vans  not  exceeding  4,100  kilograms,  ap- 
proximately 9,000  pounds,  in  gross  vehicle 
weight.  This  incentive  will  be  of  particular 
benefit  to  small  businesses  and  many  persons 
living  in  more  remote  or  rural  parts  of 
Ontario.  It  will  commence  at  midnight  to- 
night and  remain  in  effect  until  June  30, 
1981. 
8:20  p.m. 

Most  truck  purchases  are  made  to  replace 
similar  older  vehicles,  particularly  those  in 
commercial  use.  Motor  vehicles  manufacturers 
have  made  great  strides  in  improving  the  fuel 
efficiency  of  trucks  and  the  new  models  will 
consume  less  fuel  per  mile  than  the  older 
models  they  replace.  As  a  result,  this  program 
will  also  assist  energy  conservation.  I  es- 
timate the  cost  of  this  program  at  $38  million. 

Unemployment  rates  in  the  construction 
industry  have  averaged  14  per  cent  over  the 
first  nine  months  of  the  year.  At  the  present 
time  demand  is  strong  in  industrial  and  com- 
mercial construction.  In  fact,  there  are  some 
labour  shortages  in  the  finishing  trades  in  the 
Toronto  area  where  a  $500-million  to  $600- 
million  building  boom  is  under  way.  Strikes 
in  the  industrial  and  commercial  sectors  have 
artificially  boosted  unemployment,  but  over- 
all employment  in  these  sectors  is  strong  and 
is  expected  to  remain  firm  through  1981. 

The  bulk  of  unemployed  construction 
workers  normally  work  in  residential  housing, 
small  nonresidential  buildings  and  renova- 
tions. For  these  workers  the  near-term  out- 
look is  not  bright.  I  have  decided  to  imple- 
ment a  measure  designed  to  lower  the  cost 
of  new  residential  construction  and  renova- 
tions to  provide  a  boost  to  the  building 
materials  and  construction  industries. 

I  am  proposing  that  the  seven  per  cent 
retail  sales  tax  be  removed  on  many  major 
building  materials  including  lumber,  roofing 
materials,  kitchen  cabinets,  sinks,  toilets  and 
bathtubs.  This  exemption  will  be  effective 
from  midnight  tonight  to  June  30,  1981,  at 
an  estimated  cost  of  $94  million.  I  have 
chosen  specific  items  to  direct  the  benefits  of 
this  measure  principally  to  residential  con- 
struction. By  focusing  on  specific  items,  the 
cost  of  the  program  will  be  contained  and 
the  exemption  will  be  manageable  for  re- 
tailers. 


4262 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


This  incentive  will  benefit  individual  con- 
sumers, builders  and  contractors.  It  will  lower 
construction  costs  and  encourage  home  and 
apartment  owners  to  undertake  renovations 
and  remodelling.  These  activities  are  taking 
on  increasing  significance  and,  by  stimulating 
them,  it  is  hoped  that  persons  previously  em- 
ployed in  new  home  construction  will  find 
alternative  employment  for  their  skills.  Also, 
this  incentive  should  be  of  particular  benefit 
in  the  redevelopment  of  inner  core  areas.  The 
period  of  tax  relief  will  coincide  with  a  tradi- 
tionally slow  period  in  the  Canadian  con- 
struction industry,  encouraging  activity  that 
might  otherwise  not  have  taken  place. 

The  major  household  appliance  industry  is 
an  important  part  of  Canadian  manufacturing. 
Because  of  the  "big  ticket"  nature  of  house- 
hold appliances,  this  industry  has  been  hard 
hit  by  the  recent  period  of  high  interest  rates 
and  economic  slowdown.  As  well,  the  low 
level  of  housing  starts  has  depressed  demand 
for  these  products.  In  fact,  appliance  produc- 
tion was  down  9.2  per  cent  in  the  first  half 
of  1980  from  last  year's  level.  Sales  of 
refrigerators  and  electric  ranges  in  the  first 
half  of  1980  were  down  eight  per  cent  from 
the  same  period  last  year. 

To  stimulate  purchases  of  certain  major 
household  appliances,  I  propose  to  remove 
the  seven  per  cent  retail  sales  tax  from  new 
refrigerators,  freezers,  ranges,  washers  and 
dryers,  effective  midnight  tonight.  This  retail 
sales  tax  exemption  will  apply  to  purchases 
made  by  June  30,  1981,  and  will  cost  $25 
million  in  forgone  revenues.  The  low  leakage 
of  demand  to  foreign  products  in  this  largely 
Ontario-based  industry  should  result  in  a 
positive  impact  on  inventories,  production  and 
employment.  Most  purchasers  of  new  homes 
and  many  persons  undertaking  renovations 
buy  new  appliances,  and  I  anticipate  this 
measure  will  reinforce  the  incentive  provided 
by  the  exemption  for  building  materials. 

The  residential  furniture  industry,  like  the 
major  household  appliance  industry,  has  also 
felt  the  impact  of  lower  housing  starts  and 
higher  interest  rates.  Household  furniture 
store  sales  declined  by  6.1  per  cent  during  the 
first  half  of  this  year  over  the  same  period 
last  year.  Output  levels  in  this  sector  are  at 
only  two  thirds  of  their  capacity. 

This  industry  plays  an  important  role  in 
our  economy.  It  is  largely  Canadian-sourced 
and  directly  employs  a  significant  number  of 
Ontarians.  Therefore,  effective  midnight  to- 
night, I  propose  to  remove  the  seven  per  cent 
retail  sales  tax  from  new  residential  furniture 
purchases  made  until  June  30,  1981.  This 
action  will  provide  $65  million  in  tax  savings 


to  consumers  and  will  encourage  increased 
Ontario  production. 

Members  will  recall  the  unsatisfactory 
situation  in  the  hospitality  industry  in  Ontario 
and  in  Canada  only  a  few  years  ago.  Low 
prices  in  many  foreign  destinations  and  a 
strong  dollar  resulted  in  huge  deficits  in 
Canada's  balance  of  trade  in  travel.  However, 
in  the  past  two  years,  a  lower  exchange  rate 
and  considerable  private  investment  in 
facilities  have  combined  with  a  broad  range 
of  Ontario  tax  incentives  to  make  Ontario  an 
attractive  and  inexpensive  travel  alternative. 
Overseas  visitors  and  North  Americans  alike 
are  discovering  the  beauty  of  Ontario  and  the 
warmth  of  its  people.  The  new  $65-million 
downtown  convention  centre  and  the  $108- 
million  investment  in  phase  one  of  the 
Wonderland  complex  at  Maple  will  soon  be 
major  attractions  for  visitors. 

Members  will  be  familiar  with  many  of  our 
actions  to  assist  this  industry.  The  retail  sales 
tax  was  removed  from  accommodation  and 
American  plan  charges,  kitchen  equipment 
and  hotel  furnishings.  The  sales  tax  has  also 
been  removed  from  disposable  items  used  in 
hotel  rooms  and  from  prepared  meals  priced 
at  less  than  $6.  Further  assistance  is  available 
through  corporate  tax  incentives  and  the 
tourism  redevelopment  incentive  program. 

This  year's  increases  in  tourism  are  gratify- 
ing and  the  industry's  member  companies 
have  every  reason  to  be  optimistic.  To  en- 
sure its  continued  growth,  and  to  spur  the 
development  of  improved  facilities  through 
new  construction  and  refurbishing  of  existing 
infrastructure,  I  intend  to  continue  needed 
support  for  this  industry.  I  am  therefore  an- 
nouncing my  intention  to  extend  the  tem- 
porary exemptions  for  transient  accommoda- 
tions, furnishings  and  restaurant  kitchen 
machinery  and  equipment,  scheduled  to  ex- 
pire next  March  31,  until  December  31,  1981. 
The  cost  of  this  measure  will  be  $38  million 
in  1981-82. 

These  retail  sales  tax  cuts  that  I  have  an- 
nounced amount  in  total  to  $260  million.  Most 
of  the  benefits  will  be  realized  over  the  next 
eight  months  and  will  stimulate  the  economy 
during  a  difficult  period.  Specific  details  are 
contained  in  the  appendix  attached  to  my 
statement.  My  colleague  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  (Mr.  Maeck),  with  your  permission, 
will  introduce  a  bill  later  this  evening  to  give 
effect  to  these  stimulative  measures. 

The  actions  I  have  announced  to  stimulate 
demand  will  assist  the  economy  in  the  current 
business  cycle.  However,  with  the  structural 
problems  in  our  economy,  other  more  pro- 
found measures  are  needed.  I  am  accordingly 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4263 


proposing  a  five-part  program  to  improve 
Ontario's  economic  prospects  in  the  1980s. 

First,  with  the  failure  of  the  federal  budget 
to  address  strategic  economic  and  industrial 
issues— I  like  that  line;  I  will  read  it  over 
again:  First,  with  the  failure  of  the  federal 
budget  to  address  strategic  economic  and  in- 
dustrial issues,  the  province  has  commenced 
a  complete  review  of  our  economic  develop- 
ment programs,  which  total  $2  billion  in 
1980-81. 

Second,  Ontario  will  provide  $750  million 
for  new  initiatives  in  employment  and 
regional  development  over  the  next  five  years. 

8:30  p.m. 

Third,  a  full  review  of  tax  incentives  is 
under  way  to  ensure  they  are  cost  effective 
and  efficient  and  I  am  preparing  to  redirect 
such  incentives  if  necessary. 

Fourth,  explicit  initiatives  will  be  brought 
forward  to  implement  a  tougher  buy- 
Canadian  public  sector  procurement  policy. 

Finally,  Ontario  will  introduce  specific 
measures  beginning  this  quarter  to  advance 
high  technology,  world  scale  industrial 
development,  research  and  investment  in  the 
province. 

As  I  stated  earlier,  Ontario's  basic  economic 
strategy  has  been  to  promote  an  attractive 
investment,  profit  and  tax  environment  within 
which  the  private  sector  can  flourish.  The 
creation  of  the  employment  development  fund 
and  its  board  in  1979  was  designed  to  com- 
plement this  overall  policy  with  the  provision 
of  selective  direct  assistance  to  private  in- 
dustry. The  board  provided  a  valuable  cabinet 
committee  structure  to  ensure  co-ordination 
of  the  government's  program  of  direct  assist- 
ance. It  was  Ontario's  response  to  smilar 
initiatives  introduced  by  other  North 
American  jurisdictions. 

The  EDF  will  have  secured  private  sector 
investment  of  over  $3.5  billion  by  committing 
$300  million  of  direct  assistance  to  Ontario 
industry,  a  levering  of  more  than  $11  of 
private  investment  for  every  taxpayer  dollar 
invested.  This  will  ensure  the  undertaking  of 
new  projects  with  a  job  creation  potential  of 
over  19,000.  At  the  same  time,  the  EDF 
assistance  to  the  pulp  and  paper  industry  has 
helped  to  further  the  long-term  job  security 
of  20,000  mill  workers  and  loggers  in  Ontario. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Where  are  you  going  to  get 
$3.5  billion? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Go  to  Dryden,  go  to 
Iroquois  Falls  and  ask  them  how;  they  know 
it,  Eddie.  They  know  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Just  go  to  Owen  Sound 
and  ask  the  hotel  operators  what  they  think 


about  the  tax.  Ask  the  hotel  operators  in 
Owen  Sound. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  The  fund  has  assisted 
the  development  of  employee  skills  training 
programs,  urban  transportation  projects, 
mining  exploration,  small  business  and  other 
industries. 

The  fund  was  intended  as  a  short-term 
measure.  Therefore,  in  keeping  with  the  gov- 
ernment's original  commitment,  we  have  re- 
viewed this  program.  I  am  announcing  tonight 
that  the  employment  development  fund  will 
be  sunsetted  at  the  end  of  the  current  fiscal 
year. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  was  so  good  you  got  rid  of  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Just  be  patient. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Wait  for  the  next  shoe. 
Some  carryover  funding  will  be  required  in 
1981-82  to  finance  outstanding  commitments 
made  by  the  EDF.  Provision  will  also  be 
made  to  continue  certain  ongoing  programs 
which  have  been  financed  under  the  EDF 
umbrella.  I  am  thinking  of  the  Small 
Business  Development  Corporation  legisla- 
tion, the  tourism  redevelopment  incentive 
program  legislation,  the  mineral  exploration 
program  and  so  on.  These  particular  programs 
will  be  transferred  to  the  ministries  that  cur- 
rently handle  their  administration. 

The  EDF  program  was  successful  in 
developing  and  co-ordinating  Ontario's  pro- 
gram of  direct  financial  assistance  to  in- 
dustry. It  showed  clearly  the  advantages  of 
a  cabinet  committee  to  better  focus  and  co- 
ordinate the  government's  total  regional 
economic  and  employment  activities.  We 
have  decided,  therefore,  to  establish  a  new 
body  called  the  Board  of  Industrial  Leader- 
ship and  Development— BILD. 

Mr.  Martel:  BILD,  that  is  a  great  slogan. 
That  is  really  catchy.  It  grabs  you. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Like  bile. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  It  is  the  new  spelling. 
Bile  is  what  you  fellows  were  getting  listening 
to  us  talk  about  BILD. 

Chaired  by  myself,  the  board  will  incor- 
porate the  present  employment  development 
ministers  and  certain  other  ministers  as  cir- 
cumstances dictate.  The  board  will  consoli- 
date and  co-ordinate  the  government's  total 
economic  development  budget. 

I  should  mention  that  this  substantial 
budget  does  not  include  the  additional  cost 
of  incentives  to  saving  and  investment  pro- 
vided through  the  tax  system.  It  will  manage 
expenditures  of  up  to  $750  million  in  new 
initiatives  for  economic  and  regional  develop- 
ment over  five  years  and  this  will  be  in  addi- 


4264 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tion  to  the  $165-million  five-year  program 
already  announced  by  the  Minister  of  Energy. 

The  board  will  review  matters  relating  to 
federal-provincial  consultation  and  co-opera- 
tion in  economic  and  employment  develop- 
ment initiatives  and  ensure  a  comprehensive 
and  cohesive  industrial  leadership  program 
through  which  the  government  of  Ontario  can 
invest  in  the  future  of  the  people  we  serve. 

I  would  like  to  emphasize  that  $360  million 
of  the  $l-billion  economic  recovery  package 
is  allocated  to  the  period  ending  March  31, 
1982.  This  amount  comprises  $260  million  for 
the  retail  sales  tax,  $75  million  for  new 
structural  initiatives  to  be  determined,  and 
$25  million  on  special  initiatives  in  rural 
Ontario  which  I  will  now  describe. 

This  government  is  committing  $5  million 
in  1981-82  and  $21  million  in  total  over  the 
next  five  years  for  programs  for  the  rural 
counties  of  the  central  part  of  Ontario.  Those 
are  counties  that  our  Liberal  friends  in  the 
Department  of  Regional  Economic  Expansion 
would  not  include  such  as  Peterborough, 
Haliburton— and  Muskoka,  I  think,  was  one 
of  them. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Even  Muskoka? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  some  of  you  will 
write  your  weekly  columns  and  say  what  a 
great  thing  it  is.  You  will  pretend  you  were 
members  of  the  government. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  It  also  applies  to  Grey 
and  Haliburton  and  a  few  other  places,  at  the 
strong  urging  of  people  such  as  the  honour- 
able members. 

Members  will  recall  a  similar  initiative  was 
undertaken  for  the  rural  parts  of  eastern 
Ontario  under  the  DREE  agreement.  The 
major  focus  will  be  in  forestry  with  one  half 
of  the  total  funding  being  directed  to  in- 
creasing production  of  wood  fibre  from  public 
and  private  lands.  This  action  will  help  offset 
continued  depletion  of  quality  hardwood 
stands  critical  to  the  viability  of  local  forest- 
related  industries  and  will  generate  significant 
employment. 

The  other  components  of  the  package  are: 
an  intensive  geological  survey  aimed  at  in- 
creasing mining  investments;  greater  access 
for  small  business  in  rural  Ontario  to  assist- 
ance from  the  Ontario  Development  Corpora- 
tion, and  increased  funding  for  programs  that 
assist  tourist  operators  with  the  cost  of  up- 
grading their  facilities. 

Members  will  recall  that  on  April  10,  1980, 
the  Premier  addressed  the  Legislature  on  the 
subject  of  rural  electrical  rates. 

Specifically  he  requested  the  Minister  of 
Energy  (Mr.  Welch)  to  obtain  from  Ontario 
Hydro  concrete  proposals  to  reduce  the  dif- 


ferential between  electricity  rates  paid  by 
rural  residents  and  those  paid  by  urban  resi- 
dents. He  instructed  that  the  proposals  be 
made  available  by  this  fall  so  a  new  and 
more  equitable- 
Mr.  Sargent:  But  you  kept  on  the  $7- 
billion  deficit,  didn't  you? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Does  the  member  not 
want  these  in  his  county  of  Grey? 

He  instructed  that  the  proposals  be  made 
available  this  fall  when  a  new  and  equitable 
rate  structure  might  be  introduced.  At  pres- 
ent, average  rural  rates  are  considerably 
higher  than  average  municipal  rates.  This  is 
primarily  because  of  higher  distribution  costs 
experienced  in  less  densely  populated  areas 
serviced  directly  by  Ontario  Hydro.  More- 
over, the  trend  has  been  for  the  differential 
to  widen  as  the  more  densely  populated 
portions  of  the  rural  areas  have  come  in- 
creasingly into  the  service  area  of  the  munic- 
ipal utilities,  leaving  even  fewer  people  to 
share  the  costs  of  the  rural  system.  This  is 
clearly  an  inequitable  situation. 
8:40  p.m. 

As  the  electricity  rate  structure  is  quite 
complex,  it  will  require  some  time  to  alter 
this  structure.  The  government  has  decided, 
therefore,  to  instruct  Hydro  to  eliminate  the 
undue  differential  between  rural  and  urban 
electrical  rates  by  1982. 

Intejections. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Just  listen  for  a  second. 
However,  in  order  to  provide  immediate  re- 
lief to  rural  electricity  users,  the  province 
will  provide  $20  million  to  Ontario  Hydro 
during  the  1981-82  fiscal  year.  These  funds 
will  enable  Hydro  to  provide  direct  discounts 
to  rural  customers  who  at  present  pay  exces- 
sive rates. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  are  going  to  assist 
the  people  in  the  rural  areas,  Brother  Breit- 
haupt, and  that  bothers  you,  I  know. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order.  I  am  sure  the 
people  in  Armstrong  want  to  hear  this. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  think  the  people  in 
Armstrong  will  like  what  they  hear,  Mr. 
Speaker.  On  your  behalf  I  will  pass  a  word 
to  the  people  in  Armstrong  who,  I  am  sure, 
are  watching. 

Ontario's  tax  incentives  are  an  integral 
part  of  the  tax  structure.  Tax  expenditures, 
as  they  are  popularly  called,  are  not  directly 
equivalent  to  spending  programs:  a  dollar 
given  up  by  a  tax  incentive  is  not  neces- 
sarily the  same  as  a  dollar  given  in  a  grant. 
Tax  incentives  are  fundamentally  important 
in  establishing  a  competitive  tax  structure 
and  achieving  our  economic  goals.  It  is  im- 


NOVEMBER  13.  1980 


4265 


portant  that  these  incentives  be  closely  ex- 
amined in  the  context  of  the  economy's 
structural  difficulties  to  ensure  they  are  cost 
effective  and  efficient.  My  ministry  reviews 
our  incentive  programs  on  an  ongoing  basis. 
These  reviews  are  carefully  done  and  are 
instructive.  However,  I  believe  a  more  com- 
prehensive analysis  should  now  be  under- 
taken and  I  have  instructed  staff  to  com- 
mence this  review  immediately. 

I  would  like,  in  so  far  as  possible,  to  con- 
centrate our  tax  incentives  more  selectively 
in  areas  with  the  greatest  promise  and  which 
offer  the  biggest  potential  economic  gains. 
For  example,  I  believe  we  should  do  more 
to  encourage  exports,  import  replacements, 
research  and  development  and  high  tech- 
nology industries  such  as  aerospace,  com- 
munications and  microelectronics. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  are  just  slogans. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  am  following  the 
advice  those  gentlemen  gave  me  yesterday. 
I  rushed  it  into  print  last  night,  and  held 
the  press  until  then  so  he  could  say  he  af- 
fected this.  It  is  exactly  what  he  told  me 
to  do  yesterday,  is  it  not?  It  is  right  down 
the  line,  every  bit  of  it.  It  is  all  on  the 
record. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Treasurer  is  five  years 
behind  the  times.  Where  were  you  last  year 
and  the  year  before?  I  used  to  tell  Darcy 
McKeough  the  same  thing. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  It's  going  to  be  very 
hard  to  tell  me  it  isn't  right. 

Research  and  development  is  an  activity 
supported  by  tax  incentives,  yet  R  and  D 
spending  in  Canada  is  woefully  insufficient 
to  ensure  this  country  the  economic  resil- 
ience associated  with  high  levels  of  R  and  D 
activity.  We  are  currently  examining  options 
for  stimulating  R  and  D,  particularly  to  en- 
courage both  new  Canadian  investment  and 
greater  spending  by  multinational  corpora- 
tions. It  may  prove  necessary  to  relate  in- 
centives to  success  in  achieving  certain 
threshold  levels  of  spending.  I  want  to  make 
it  clear  I  expect  to  see  some  improvement 
in  this  area. 

I  want  to  talk  about  a  tougher  buy- 
Canadian  public  sector  procurement  policy. 
Structural  policies  to  strengthen  the  Ontario 
economy  can  be  reinforced  by  an  aggressive 
buy-Canadian  public  sector  procurement 
policy.  Buy-American  regulations  such  as  the 
Surface  Transportation  Assistance  Act,  Japa- 
nese domestic  purchasing  policies,  the  North 
Sea  oil  sourcing  legislation,  foreign  govern- 
ment-sponsored marginal  pricing,  and  grow- 
ing provincial  sourcing  preferences  that  now 
threaten   the    Canadian   common   market— all 


of  these  are  competitive  realities  that  con- 
front Ontario's  "open  door"  procurement 
stance,  with  our  strict  adherence  to  com- 
petitive principles  and  an  across-the-board 
10  per  cent  preference  for  Canadian  goods 
and  services. 

On  the  positive  side,  opportunities  for 
Canadian  participation  in  the  upcoming  re- 
source projects  have  moved  the  federal  gov- 
ernment and  Canadian  industry  to  seek  agres- 
sively  a  better  sourcing  deal  for  Canadian 
business.  Ontario  has  tested  these  waters,  too. 
In  the  pulp  and  paper  modernization  program 
we  have  secured  commitments  from  the  com- 
panies to  purchase  equipment  from  Canadian 
sources  where  feasible. 

The  existing  10  per  cent  Canadian  prefer- 
ence applies  at  the  present  time  only  to 
Ontario  government  ministries  and  not  to 
public  agencies  such  as  school  boards  and 
hospitals,  crown  corporations  and  municipali- 
ties that  receive  provincial  transfer  payments. 
Ontario  ministries  alone  currently  spend  $600 
million  annually,  or  75  cents  out  of  each 
purchasing  dollar,  on  goods  and  services  made 
in  Canada;  but  more  can  be  done. 

Several  initiatives  will  be  undertaken  to 
stimulate  Canadian  industries  through  a 
tougher  public  procurement  policy.  A  pro- 
curement policy  office  will  be  set  up  to 
establish  and  implement  effective  policy 
guidelines,  set  industry  target  ratios  for 
domestic  content,  monitor  progress  and 
develop  further  initiatives.  The  Canadian 
preference  will  be  extended  to  all  provincially 
funded  agencies  through  these  guidelines.  The 
Canadian  preference  will  also  be  extended  to 
those  industries  receiving  provincial  develop- 
ment assistance  through  commitments  in  their 
corporate  sourcing  policies. 

These  steps  will  ensure  a  bigger  role  for 
Ontario  and  Canadian  companies  in  supplying 
the  needs  of  the  public  sector  and  in  par- 
ticipating in  private  sector  expansion. 

To  have  maximum  impact,  the  activities  of 
the  new  Board  of  Industrial  Leadership  and 
Development  and  those  at  the  procurement 
office,  and  the  direction  of  tax  initiatives  and 
incentives  will  require  close  co-ordination  and 
co-operation  in  federal-provincial  actions.  I 
will  be  addressing  this  issue  when  I  and  my 
colleague  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism (Mr.  Grossman)  meet  with  the  federal 
ministers  of  Finance  and  Industry,  Trade  and 
Commerce  in  Ottawa  in  the  near  future. 

Since  the  mid-1970s,  the  economic  situation 
has  required  the  government  to  give  a 
high  priority  to  economic  and  employment 
development.  Spending  has  been  prudently 
managed  and  net  cash  requirements  reduced 


4266 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


in  a  balanced  budget  framework  as  a  con- 
tribution to  lessening  inflationary  pressures. 
Major  tax  increases  have  been  avoided  for  the 
same  reason.  Significant  incentives  have  been 
provided  to  promote  investment  and  job  crea- 
tion. However,  at  no  time  has  this  strategy 
been  allowed  to  hurt  effective  delivery  of 
major  social  programs. 

Over  the  period  1972-73  to  1980-81,  com- 
bined spending  on  health  and  community  and 
social  services  has  increased  faster  than  total 
budgetary  spending  excluding  public  debt 
interest.  Ontario's  support  for  the  elderly  and 
disadvantaged  has  increased  considerably 
faster  than  total  spending.  New  initiatives 
will  be  brought  forward  in  recognition  of  the 
International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons. 

Economies  have  been  secured  by  cutting 
out  waste.  For  the  past  four  years,  we  have 
realized  average  annual  gross  savings  of  $400 
million,  mainly  to  finance  in-year  spending  in- 
creases in  the  social  field  without  adding  to 
total  spending.  This  year  is  no  exception. 

Funding  of  the  Ministry  of  Health  has  been 
increased  since  the  budget.  Health  expen- 
ditures now  represent  approximately  28  per 
cent  of  total  government  expenditures  com- 
pared to  25.8  per  cent  prior  to  the  imposition 
of  restraint. 

In  April  1980  the  government  provided  a 
10  per  cent  rate  increase  for  family  benefits 
and  general  welfare  assistance  recipients  at 
an  annual  cost  of  $54  million.  Further  in- 
creases with  an  annual  cost  of  $49  million 
will  be  announced  by  my  colleague  the  Min- 
ister of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Mr. 
Norton).  For  this  fiscal  year,  a  further  $1 
million  will  be  provided  for  day  care.  A  more 
extensive  program  announcement  for  next 
year  will  also  be  forthcoming  from  the 
minister. 
8:50  p.m. 

Unlike  the  Liberal  government  in  Ottawa, 
we  intend  to  respect  social  priorities  and 
values  while  keeping  our  own  fiscal  and  in- 
dustrial priorities  in  clear  focus.  Let  others 
tax  those  who  can  least  afford  it,  let  others 
acquiesce  to  inequity  and  economic  injustice; 
this  Conservative  government,  the  government 
of  the  Honourable  William  G.  Davis,  will  not. 

I  would  like  to  talk  about  relief  from  home 
heating  costs.  The  Liberal  government  in 
Ottawa  has  shown  it  is  insensitive  to  the  im- 
pact of  rising  energy  prices  on  people  with 
fixed  and  low  incomes.  Sudden  increases  in 
energy  costs,  staged  or  not,  impact  unfairly 
on  these  people.  They  need  assistance  to  en- 
able them,  over  time,  to  adjust  their  house- 
hold budgets— budgets  already  strained  by 
inflation— to  the  new  realities. 


The  government  of  Ontario  believes  a 
temporary  program  of  relief  from  sharp  in- 
creases in  home  heating  costs,  one  that  is 
income-tested  and  of  three  years  duration, 
should  be  implemented  as  soon  as  possible. 
Benefits  should  start  being  delivered  no  later 
than  the  first  quarter  of  1982,  in  respect  of 
the  heating  season  beginning  next  fall,  when 
the  new  prices  will  start  to  hit  the  lowest 
income  groups  hard.  I  will  be  making  specific 
proposals  to  the  Minister  of  Finance  for  a 
shared  cost  program.  I  might  add  that  we  will 
pursue  unilateral  action  should  the  federal 
government  be  unprepared  to  see  the  error 
and  injustice  of  its  ways. 

As  a  result  of  my  proposals  tonight,  net 
cash  requirements  for  this  fiscal  year  are  now 
forecast  at  $1,059  million,  or  $110  million 
over  budget.  This  deterioration  is  wholly 
accounted  for  by  a  revision  to  the  revenue 
forecast— $33  million  reported  in  the  Septem- 
ber 30  Ontario  Finances  and  $77  million  re- 
sulting from  tax  relief  measures  announced 
this  evening.  The  balance  of  the  net  costs  of 
the  temporary  incentives,  $147  million,  will 
fall  in  1981-82. 

I  have  made  no  change  to  the  1980-81 
expenditure  forecast  at  the  present  time.  The 
Chairman  of  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 
(Mr.  McCague)  assures  me  that,  as  in  the 
past,  maximum  effort  will  be  made  to  secure 
savings  to  offset  the  in-year  increases  we  have 
allowed  in  priority  areas. 

The  higher  level  of  net  cash  requirements 
in  1980-81  and  the  flow  over  into  1981-82 
are  well  within  the  capacity  of  the  province 
to  finance  without  resorting  to  public  borrow- 
ing—unlike some  other  governments.  Some 
would  perhaps  question  our  commitment  to 
restoring  the  capacity  to  balance  the  budget. 
Well,  we  did  achieve  that  capacity  last  year. 

In  view  of  the  economic  situation,  we 
decided  this  year  to  allow  a  break  in  the 
^attem  of  regular  reductions  in  the  deficit. 
Ho-vever.  we  have  remained  vigilant  and 
prudent  in  our  spending. 

Mr.   Peterson:    You're  flexible. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  We  have  to  be,  my 
friend,  because  the  economy  is  not  a  static 
thing.  If  we  are  not  flexible— if  we  are  as 
rigid  as  the  member's  federal  friends—  thev 
cannot  adjust  to  the  realities  of  the  day  and 
we  can. 

Mr.  Peterson:   They  don't  listen  to  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  You  understand  being 
static.  You  have  been  static  all  your  life. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
static  is  something  I  hear  in  my  ears  a  lot 
trying  to  explain  what  happens. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4267 


Mr.  Peterson:  Sitting  beside  the  Premier, 
yon  are  just  crazy. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  With  a  resumption  of 
reasonable  economic  growth,  we  will  be  able 
to  lower  our  cash  requirements  once  again. 

As  we  have  stated  from  the  outset,  the 
purpose  of  cutting  the  deficit  is  twofold: 
first,  to  reduce  inflation,  and  second,  to  give 
the  province  control  and  flexibility  to  meet 
iU  priorities.  We  are  now  using  this  flexi- 
bility to  invest  heavily  in  Ontario's  future. 
Surely  that  is  the  ultimate  mission  of  com- 
passionate and  sensitive  government  during 
challenging  times 

Pour  resumer,  M.  le  President,  on  peut 
dire  que  notre  programme  de  relance  econo- 
mique  aura  pour  effet:  d'aider  des  millions 
de  contribuables,  des  milliers  d'entreprises 
et  plusieurs  communautes  negligees  par  le 
gouvernement  du  Canada;  de  faire  preuve 
de  ce  leadership  economique  dont  la  carence 
au  palier  federal  a  des  effets  si  lamentables; 
d'exercer  a  court  terme  un  effet  stimulant 
l'economie;  de  creer  des  emplois  en  Ontario; 
d'assurer  une  sage  gestion  economique  de 
notre  avenir. 

D'engager  de  nouvelles  ressources  en  vue 
d'une  croissance  et  d'une  prosperite  con- 
tinues; de  reaffirmer  notre  appui  aux  pri- 
orites  sociales,  au  developpement  regional 
et  a  la  promotion  des  regions  rurales  de 
1'Ontario;  d'investir  intensivement  dans  les 
competences  de  nos  entrepreneurs  et  dans 
le  potentiel  industriel  de  notre  province  et 
de  sa  population;  de  fournir  un  cadre  pour 
les  investissements  dans  les  industries  faisant 
appel  a  une  technologie  avancee  et  pour  les 
travaux  de  recherche  et  de  mise  au  point 
d' importance  si  vitale  pour  l'avenir  de 
1'Ontario. 

Mr.  Roy:  Tu  ne  viens  pas  a  Carleton  par- 
lant  comme  ca. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Que  cest  que  tu  veux? 
Je  1'ai  fait  dans  votre  circonscription  1'autre 
jour,  mon  ami.  J'ai  trouve  qu'il  n'y  a  per- 
sonne  qui  va  voter  pour  vous. 

To  summarize,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  economic 
recovery  program  will:  assist  millions  of  tax- 
payers, thousands  of  businesses  and  many 
communities  ignored  by  the  government  of 
Canada;  give  economic  leadership  sadly 
lacking  at  the  federal  level;  provide  effective 
short-term  stimulus  to  the  economy;  create 
employment  in  Ontario;  ensure  sound  eco- 
nomic management  for  our  future;  commit 
new  resources  for  continued  growth  and 
prosperity;  reaffirm  our  support  for  social 
priorities,  regional  development  and  rural 
Ontario;  invest  heavily  in  the  entrepreneurial 


skill  and  industrial  potential  of  our  province 
and  her  people;  provide  the  framework  for 
high    technology    investment,    research    and 
development  so  vital  to  Ontario's  future. 
9  p.m. 

Ontario  is  a  part  of  a  nation  and  a  con- 
tinent experiencing  fundamental  transition 
caused  by  international  economic  forces  and 
energy  policies  beyond  our  control.  Effective 
leadership  from  Ottawa  could  effect  this 
transition  in  a  fashion  that  profits  all  Cana- 
dians. That  leadership  is  not  forthcoming. 
We  must  assess  our  own  priorities  here  in 
Ontario  and  defend  our  fundamental  entre- 
preneurial values.  We  must  advance  Cana- 
dian ownership  and  Canadian  technology. 
We  must  move  now  to  invest  in  and  secure 
our  future— a  future  which,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Honourable  William  G.  Davis, 
holds  immense  promise  and  opportunity  for 
us  all. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder 
if  I  might  have  the  permission  of  the  House 
to  introduce  one  bill  relevant  to  the  budget 
statement  made  by  the  Treasurer. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  we  have  consent? 

Agreed. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILL 

RETAIL  SALES  TAX  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  187,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

SUPPLEMENTARY   MEASURES 

( continued ) 

Mr.  Peterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that  effort 
from  the  Treasurer  deserves  a  standing  ova- 
tion, those  guys  are  going  to  be  standing  on 
top  of  their  desks  jumping  through  hoops 
when  I  am  finished. 

It  was  a  real  case  of  promise  unfulfilled. 
I  have  never  seen  so  much  activity  in  this 
building  today,  scurrying  around  in  great 
anticipation  of  the  mini-budget  to  solve  all 
the  province's  economic  ills.  I  am  going  to 
get  into  it  in  substance  in  a  minute,  but  I 
want  to  tell  the  House  it  is  a  hollow  super- 
ficial document  that  may  or  may  not  apply 
in  the  next  two,  three  and  four  years.  There 
is  very  little  of  any  substance  to  contribute 
to  any  economic  logic  now  or  in  the  imme- 
diate future. 

I  am  constantly  struck  by  the  difference 
between  the  government's  press  releases  and 
the  substance  of  its  actions.   I  am  sure  that 


4268 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


difference  was  noticed  tonight  when  the 
minister  was  reading  it— the  great  $l-billion 
project  to  bring  about  economic  recovery.  I 
will  prove  it  is  less  than  We  are  spending 
now  on  economic  development  in  this  prov- 
ince. It  is  a  fraud.  It  is  a  sham.  He  has 
fooled  everybody. 

I  do  not  know,  maybe  it  is  a  deliberate 
sabotage.  Maybe  a  few  of  the  people  in  the 
ministry  went  down  to  Treasury.  Maybe  this 
is  the  Treasurer's  deliberate  move  to  sabo- 
tage the  Treasury  because  I  notice  some  in- 
teresting play  in  this  budget  tonight  about 
how  the  Treasurer  wants  to  review  all  the 
economic  programs  that  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  is  currently  undertaking. 

It  is  hollow  and  superficial  and  it  is  not 
going  to  work  very  well.  I  am  going  to  put 
our  alternatives  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  always  like  to  have  a  little  text  when  I 
am  speaking  to  heathens  and  tonight  I  have 
chosen  a  text  from  the  Financial  Post,  which 
my  friends  opposite  will  read  on  occasion 
and  my  friends  to  the  left  probably  do  not 
understand  at  the  best  of  times.  On  the 
timing  of  the  mini-budget,  our  former  de- 
parted friend  Sidney  Handleman  said  this: 
"Miller  sees  this  as  an  opportunity  to  do 
what  he  was  going  to  have  done  anyway  for 
next  spring,  let's  face  it.  The  mini-budget 
could  have  a  big  impact  on  the  by-election, 
especially  if  incentives  for  high  technology 
industry  concentrated  in  the  Ottawa  region 
are  implemented." 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  tell  you  the  minister 
has  disappointed  poor  old  Sidney  Handle- 
man.  He  has  disappointed  us  and  I  think  he 
has  disappointed  every  thoughtful  observer. 
All  this  fuss  today  has  amounted  to  nought. 
If  he  had  read  this  as  a  quick  statement  in 
the  House  today  it  probably  could  have 
sneaked  through,  but  he  created  such  high 
expectations  by  his  own  hand  that  he  de- 
serves to  suffer  the  slings  and  arrows  for  his 
failure  to  deliver  on  those  expectations. 

We  understand  as  well  as  the  minister 
does  the  politics  of  this  event.  I  find  it  very 
amusing  when  he  stands  and  regales  us  with 
the  great  leadership  of  William  G.  Davis.  I 
can  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  next  week  under 
Stuart  Lyon  Smith  we  are  going  to  have 
another  member  in  this  House  sitting  on  this 
side.  The  people  of  Carleton  are  going  to 
see  through  this.  Those  guys  are  not  even 
in  the  race,  so  do  not  despair.  We  are  going 
to  have  another  member  next  week  and  I 
look  forward  to  that. 

The  reality  is  we  are  facing  as  dismal  an 
economic  circumstance  in  this  province  at 
this  time  as  we  have  in  recent  history  since 


the  Depression.  Unemployment  is  bad  and 
real  income  is  not  keeping  pace  with  infla- 
tion. I  could  go  on  and  recite  statistic  after 
statistic.  There  are  not  many  thoughtful  ob- 
servers in  this  province  or  in  this  country 
who  could  not  see  this  coming;  that  is  the 
tragedy. 

We  have  made  speeches  and  speeches  from 
this  side  of  the  House.  We  have  quoted  every 
respectable  economic  authority  in  this  country 
and  this  province  and  what  we  see  today  is 
no  surprise.  What  we  see  has  not  caught  us 
by  surprise  because  we  were  arguing  for  the 
kind  of  substantive  investment  in  wealth- 
creating  instruments  in  this  province  that 
could  have  prevented  the  kinds  of  problems 
the  government  is  attempting  to  respond  to 
today. 

The  response  is  a  superficial  one.  I  cannot 
stand  here  and  say  I  am  against  sales  tax 
cuts  because  it  is  Christmas  time  and  who  is 
against  Santa  Claus?  When  we  are  dealing 
with  a  tax  expenditure  of  $260  million,  of 
which  the  minister  is  going  to  undertake  a 
complete  review,  there  are  very  creative  ways 
to  use  that  money.  One  of  the  things  he 
could  have  done,  the  parsimonious  chap,  was 
to  extend  aid  to  the  elderly,  those  people  he 
disfranchised  in  his  last  budget.  He  could 
have  spent  $10  million  doing  that  to  help  the 
poorest  of  our  senior  citizens.  That  is  some- 
thing serious  he  could  have  done. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Talk  about  mis- 
leading. Talk  about  fraud.  The  member  is  it. 

Mr.  Peterson:  I  have  exercised  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  (Miss  Stephenson)  and  I 
do  not  mean  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Havrot:  How  did  you  get  in  the  front 
bench? 

Mr.  Peterson:  Whoever  arranged  that  front 
bench  did  not  have  an  aesthetically  well- 
trained  eye.  I  am  just  looking  at  the  minister 
over  there.  They  look  for  all  the  world  like  a 
tag  team  in  an  obscene  mud  wrestling  match, 
sitting  there  together  yelling,  shouting  and 
winking  at  each  other. 

I  want  to  deal  with  this  statement  of  the 
minister  today  as  best  as  I  can  respond.  I 
have  chosen  to  go  through  it  in  the  order 
that  the  Treasurer  presented  it  tonight. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  appreciate  any  effort 
you  could  make  to  keep  the  yelping  down  to 
a  dull  roar.  I  certainly  expect  some  of  it. 
When  one  inflicts  pain,  one  expects  some 
screaming  and  yelling,  but  it  would  probably 
be  to  their  benefit  to  listen,  at  least  to  some 
extent. 

9:10  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4269 


I  have  heard  the  Treasurer  on  numerous 
occasions  wail  against  the  federal  govern- 
ment for  its  lack  of  a  national  economic  plan. 
That  is  hypocrisy  in  the  extreme.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  a  provincial  economic  plan 
of  any  description  and  even  some  of  the 
initiatives  he  alludes  to  in  this  document  are 
so  lacking  in  specificity  or  are  going  to  take 
place  so  far  in  the  future  that  he  has  con- 
tributed nothing  here  tonight  to  the  sum  total 
of  knowledge  in  this  province. 

I  understand  the  political  intention  of  their 
trying  to  dissociate  themselves  from  their 
federal  friends  in  Ottawa,  from  the  federal 
government.  That  is  their  prerogative  and  I 
don't  deny  them  that,  but  they  do  it  on  such 
wrong  grounds.  This  is  no  $1 -billion,  five-year 
economic  recovery  program.  It  just  is  not.  The 
press  releases  are  wrong.  The  whole  descrip- 
tion is  wrong. 

I  am  interested  to  read,  even  by  the 
Treasurer's  own  prescription,  on  page  four  of 
his  statement  tonight  he  says,  "Our  economy 
will  continue  to  operate  well  below  potential." 
I  assume  that  means  even  after  his  new 
economic  initiatives  here  tonight  because  that 
is  the  way  it  reads.  That  is  a  pretty  dismal 
kind  of  approach  because  I  can  tell  him  we 
decry  very  much  the  lack  of  ability  to  live  up 
to  our  potential  in  this  province— unemployed 
young  people,  the  lack  of  skilled  workers,  the 
lack  of  apprenticeship  programs.  There  are 
always  allusions  to  it,  always  studies  on  it, 
always  noise  about  it. 

There  is  the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie) 
grunting  and  laughing  over  there.  This  fail- 
ure is  going  to  rest  clearly  on  his  shoulders 
and  tonight,  still  again,  there  is  no  initiative. 
I  can  tell  him  the  gravestone  of  that  gov- 
ernment is  going  to  read,  "We  failed  to  do 
anything  about  skills  training  in  this  prov- 
ince." That  is  the  biggest  single  failure.  That 
is  something  over  which  they  have  complete 
constitutional  jurisdiction.  They  can't  blame 
that  on  the  feds.  That  is  their  fault.  They 
have  the  responsibility.  They  have  the  insti- 
tutions. But  they  don't  have  the  imagination 
and  the  guts  to  pursue  it. 

One  federal  study  I  read  said  there  would 
be  a  shortage  of  35,000  skilled  workers  in 
this  province  by  the  year  1985.  We  know  it 
is  coming.  We  also  know  the  spinoff.  We  also 
know  that  every  skilled  worker  creates  em- 
ployment for  five  or  six  other  workers.  We 
are  talking,  in  total,  of  150,000  or  200,000 
workers— yet  again  rhetoric,  yet  again  prom- 
ises, yet  again  blame  for  the  federal  govern- 
ment, but  no  specific  action.  That  is  a  glaring 
failure  in  this  document. 


The  job  creation  figures  here  are  again 
dismal,  even  after  this  economic  stimulus, 
even  after  this  $1  billion  worth  of  expenditure 
whose  method  of  deployment  we  have  yet  to 
see.  Even  there  the  job  creation  figures  would 
be  down  something  like  47  per  cent  this  year, 
even  with  an  expanding  work  force.  That  is  a 
dismal  admission  of  failure  by  this  govern- 
ment. 

I  want  to  deal  with  their  response,  their 
action  to  solve  the  economic  problem.  They 
have  pulled  out  the  tried  and  true  method  of 
sales  tax  cuts.  How  many  times  have  we  tried 
them  before?  The  quick  fix,  the  short-term 
solution— neat,  clean  and  easy  to  administer. 

He  can  put  a  cutoff  date  on  it  and  there  is  a 
cutoff  date  on  this:  June  30,  1981.  I  will 
guarantee  something  right  now:  The  next 
provincial  election  will  be  some  time  before 
June  30,  1981,  because  that  is  when  all  this 
stuff  runs  out.  It  is  so  blatantly  politically 
motivated,  it  is  fraudulent. 

I  want  to  read  something  about  sales  tax 
cuts  in  general.  The  Conference  Board  in 
Canada  found  that  the  1975  sales  tax  cut.  on 
cars  in  Ontario  led  to  a  decline  in  sales  of 
cars  in  1976.  This  conclusion  is  the  same  as 
the  Jump  and  Wilson  study  we  had.  All  we 
know,  on  the  best  evidence  from  the  best 
authorities,  is  that  sales  tax  cuts  lead  only  to 
a  change  in  the  timing  of  the  purchasing. 
Admittedly,  sometimes  there  are  reasons  for 
changing  the  timing  of  the  purchases,  but 
again  it  is  an  attempt  at  a  quick  fix  for 
political  reasons  that  does  nothing  to  solve 
the  structural  problems  in  the  province.  I  find 
that  deplorable. 

In  1978  a  study  by  the  Department  of 
Industry,  Trade  and  Commerce  found  the 
sales  tax  cut  on  footwear,  furniture  and  tex- 
tiles in  Quebec  had  a  similar  effect.  All  it  did 
was  change  the  timing.  Being  a  politician,  I 
understand  as  well  as  they  do  the  necessity 
of  good  timing,  particularly  around  election 
time,  but  we  have  done  it  so  many  times 
since  1975.  We  saw  the  biggest  deficit  ever 
in  the  history  of  this  province  in  1975,  pre- 
election obviously,  when  we  gave  away  all 
the  money  on  first-time  owners'  grants  and 
sales  tax  cuts  for  which  we  are  still  paying  a 
price. 

What  we  do  when  we  get  up  into  a  tax 
expenditure  of  this  type  is  just  force  future 
purchasers,  future  consumers,  future  tax- 
payers to  pay  for  our  consumption  now.  I  am 
not  saying  there  are  not  some  justifications 
sometimes,  but  had  we  spent  all  that  money 
over  the  past  few  years  building  the  struc- 
tural base,  the  sound  foundation,  the  job 
training,  the  skills  training  on  research  and 


.4270 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


technology  and  that  type  of  industrial  in- 
frastructure, we  should  not  have  to  fool 
around  with  quick  fixes  and  superficial  cures 
today.  Therein  is  the  major  failure  of  this 
government  and  of  this  document. 

When  we  cut  the  sales  tax  on  light  trucks 
we  are  substituting  about  40  per  cent  of 
those  that  will  be  imported  from  the  United 
States  and  Japan  and  from  other  countries. 
To  that  extent  about  $15.3  million  in  for- 
gone revenue  will  go  to  subsidize  imported 
vehicles. 

I  was  not  able  to  determine  the  exact  fig- 
ure on  building  materials,  because  we  were 
in  the  lockup,  but  again  a  lot  of  the  $94  mil- 
lion going  to  cut  the  sales  tax  on  buildine 
materials  will  go  outside  the  province  and 
outside  the  country.  It  is  interesting  that  was 
all  done  on  the  pretext  or  rationalization  of 
creating  jobs.  Admittedly  a  lot  of  people  are 
involved  in  the  renovation  business  and  it 
will  probably  create  some  jobs,  but  if  they 
want  to  take  a  fix  for  the  economy  of  about 
$100  million,  there  are  other  ways  to  do  that. 

What  about  a  wage  subsidy  program  at 
this  critical  time?  The  government  has  the 
mechanism  in  place  for  a  $1.25-an-hour  wage 
subsidy.  We  have  suggested  before  in  the 
House  programs  such  as  a  20  per  cent  tax 
credit  for  new  jobs  created.  When  we  want 
to  direct  the  power  and  might  of  government 
to  achieve  a  specific  purpose,  we  have  to  be 
more  creative  than  just  cutting  sales  tax.  We 
think  we  could  have  created  more  employ- 
ment, which  is  what  we  want  to  do  as  the 
immediate  short-term  objective,  by  involving 
ourselves  in  a  wage  assistance  program  of 
some  type.  But  again  this  is  a  quick  fix  with 
the  appearance  of  great  activity. 

Mr.  Williams:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  television  cameramen  have 
found  the  dialogue  so  tedious  they  had  to 
leave  the  room.  I  am  wondering  if  we  could 
have  the  television  lights  turned  down  to 
save  the  members*  eyes. 

Mr.  Peterson:  I  would  like  to  thank  the 
member  for  Sleepy  Hollow  for  his  contribu- 
tion. It  is  interesting  that  we  are  going  to 
have  a  sales  tax  fix  of  $25  million  on  house- 
hold appliances.  Our  studies  on  that  say  the 
market  in  Ontario  is  about  $250  million  a 
year.  About  half  of  that  is  produced  outside 
our  borders.  Again,  we  are  trying  to  stimulate 
employment.  It  is  not  necessarily  the  most 
effective  way  to  achieve  that  aim. 
9:20  p.m. 

Residential  furniture  is  about  the  same. 
The  market  in  Ontario  is  around  $1  billion 
dollars,  about  half  of  which  will  be  imported 
from  outside  our  borders.  A  high  percentage 


of  the  money  we  are  talking  about  will  assist 
production  from  external  sources  and  isn't 
focused  as  well  as  it  could  be  on  creating 
employment  in  Ontario  now. 

It  is  interesting  that  the  federal-sector 
task  force  report  on  the  furniture  industry  a 
couple  of  years  ago  recommended  a  sales  tax 
cut  for  that  sector.  Ontario's  formal  response 
to  that  report  rejected  the  proposal  as  being 
of  only  temporary  value  with  no  long-term 
impact;  that  is  a  fact.  It  is  interesting  only 
in  that  they  did  not  anticipate  a  by-election. 

My  colleague  from  Wentworth  North  (Mr. 
Cunningham)  pointed  out  an  interesting  dis- 
crepancy tonight  on  removing  the  tax  on 
household  appliances.  On  page  28  an  in- 
eligible appliance  is  defined  as  an  appliance 
designed  for  commercial  use.  Yet  on  page 
30  the  Treasurer  includes  for  sales  tax  ex- 
emptions under  the  tourism  sector  kitchen 
equipment  purchased  for  use  in  restaurants. 
I  would  just  like  to  tell  the  Treasurer  about 
that,  as  he  may  want  to  work  this  out  and 
decide  what  is  eligible  and  what  isn't  eligible 
before  he  brings  in  the  legislation  on  this 
particular  bill. 

It  is  interesting  also  that  his  incentives  for 
the  tourism  business,  the  $38  million,  db  not 
take  place  this  year.  It  is  an  extension  only 
of  an  existing  program  to  the  end  of  fiscal 
1982.  That,  realistically,  is  the  only  initiative 
in  this  budget. 

I  want  to  point  out  some  interesting  figures 
on  the  way  it  has  been  calculated,  and  these 
are  at  the  back  of  his  little  book.  We  have 
about  four  and  a  half  months  left  in  fiscal 
1980-81  and  there  will  be  a  net  tax  forgive- 
ness or  a  tax  expenditure  of  about  $77  million 
in  four  and  a  half  months.  The  major  impact 
from  these  tax  cuts  comes  next  year  when 
$147  million  worth  of  tax  expenditure  will  be 
achieved  basically  over  a  three-month  period. 
The  major  stimulus  is  going  to  be  in  the 
1981-82  fiscal  year,  not  in  this  year,  not  over 
the  tough  winter  we  are  facing  right  now, 
which  is  a  very  interesting  way  for  the 
Treasurer  to  manipulate  his  figures. 

Having  left  the  sales  tax  cuts— and  ob- 
viously our  party  will  support  them,  but  we 
will  try  to  be  as  constructive  as  we  can  about 
alternative  ways  to  use  those  moneys  crea- 
tively to  create  the  kinds  of  social  and  human 
objectives  we  want  to  create— I  can  tell  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  Ontario's  program  for  in- 
dustrial and  economic  development,  BILD, 
the  Board  of  Industrial  and  Leadership 
Development,  as  I  gather  it  is  called,  or 
BUST,  is  not  worth  the  paper  it  is  written  on 
tonight. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4271 


First,  the  Treasurer  is  going  to  have  a  com- 
plete review  of  our  economic  development 
program.  That,  of  course,  is  our  little  friend 
at  the  end  of  the  bench,  the  boy  who  would 
be  Treasurer,  as  he  is  effectively  known.  The 
Treasurer  is  now  going  to  relinquish  it  all  to 
his  colleague  at  the  end  of  the  bench,  who  is 
going  to  amuse  himself.  He  says  it  totals  $2 
billion  in  1980-81,  which  again  is  no  new 
initiative. 

There  is  going  to  be  $750  million  for  new 
initiatives  in  employment  and  regional 
development  over  the  next  five  years,  not 
starting  this  year  but  next  year.  That  is  less 
than  we  are  spending  now,  interestingly 
enough.  There  is  to  be  a  full  review  of  tax 
incentives,  which  I  will  get  to  in  a  minute, 
which  was  my  bill  that  was  introduced  in  this 
House.  I  am  glad  they  are  finally  getting 
around  to  it. 

They  are  going  to  have  a  buy-Canadian 
sector,  a  complete  policy  lifted  out  of  our 
industrial  strategy,  which  I  am  happy  on  be- 
half of  my  colleagues  to  see.  There  are  to  be 
other  specific  measures,  beginning  this  quar- 
ter, to  advance  high  technology,  world-scale 
industrial  development,  research  and  invest- 
ment in  this  province.  That  is  the  end  of  the 
specificity.  There  are  no  more  details.  I  am 
convinced  that  this  Treasurer,  that  bu- 
reaucracy, has  no  bloody  idea  what  it  plans 
to  do.  They  thought  it  would  be  a  nice 
round  figure,  $750  million  over  a  period  of 
time.  That  is  why  they  decided  at  this  time 
of  political  crisis  for  them  to  introduce  a 
program. 

They  are  going  to  form  an  economic  board, 
BILD,  which  is  something  like  BED  in 
Ottawa,  something  that  they  criticized  very 
seriously.  It  is  really  no  different  from  the 
employment  development  now.  It  is  chaired 
by  the  Treasurer  and  it  is  going  to  have  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  on  it.  There 
is  really  no  substantial  change,  not  one  initia- 
tive here. 

He  is  going  to  spend  up  to  $750  million 
over  five  years.  Get  that,  Mr.  Speaker:  it  is 
"up  to,"  with  no  commitment  of  $750  million. 
What  is  interesting  is  he  makes  a  specific 
promise.  He  said  this  year,  being  up  to  the 
end  of  1982,  he  is  going  to  spend  $75  million 
for  new  structural  initiatives  to  be  deter- 
mined, and  $25  million  in  special  initiatives 
for  rural  Ontario  which  he  will  now  describe. 
That  is  his  commitment.  It  is  $100  million  in 
new  money  to  the  end  of  1982. 

Over  the  last  two  years  he  has  spent  $300 
million  through  the  employment  development 
fund  on  economic  initiatives,  which  averages 
out  to  $150  million  a  year.  His  only  commit- 


ment next  year  to  the  end  of  1982  is  to  spend 
$100  million.  That  is  why  I  said  at  the  be- 
ginning, and  I  say  to  the  House  now,  it  is 
less— and  I  want  the  House  to  hear  me— than 
he  is  doing  now.  That  is  the  full  commitment 
out  of  that  Treasurer.  That  is  why  it  is  such 
a  hollow  proposal  that  he  has  brought  to  us 
tonight.  It  does  not  bear  serious  approval  by 
any  sophistical  observer  of  that  document. 

Of  that  $100  million,  $20  million  is  not  to 
encourage  industrial  development  but  to 
subsidize  the  rate  differential  between  rural 
and  urban  hydro  users.  One  could  not  really 
argue  that  is  to  create  industrial  develop- 
ment, it  is  to  honour  a  political  promise  the 
Premier  made  when  he  was  under  pressure 
from  a  rural  delegation  a  few  months  ago. 
They  do  not  know  what  they  are  going  to  do 
about  hydro  rates  so  they  are  going  to  buy 
them  off  for  the  short  term.  That  is  the  reality. 
In  fact,  it  is  a  reduction  from  $150  million  a 
year  to  a  commitment  of  less  than  $100 
million,  more  like  $80  million  a  year.  Still,  we 
do  not  know  what  he  is  going  to  do  with  it. 

We  did  know  what  he  was  going  to  do 
when  he  brought  in  the  employment  devel- 
opment fund.  Some  of  us  disagreed  with 
various  parts  of  it,  and  the  way  he  did  it, 
but  at  least  we  knew  what  he  was  going  to 
do.  We  still  do  not  know  what  he  is  going 
to  do  now.  I  defy  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I 
defy  any  other  observer  to  tell  me  what  he 
plans  to  do. 

He  is  going  to  spend  $5  million  growing 
trees.  I  congratulate  him.  It  is  the  old  two- 
for-one  proposal,  I  guess.  He  has  promised 
that  for  years.  I  think  it  is  a  worthwhile  ex- 
penditure of  public  funds  and  I  congratulate 
him  for  it. 

He  is  going  to  spend  $20  million  to  sort 
out  the  differential  on  hydro  rates.  Again,  as 
I  said,  that  is  to  honour  a  political  commit- 
ment of  the  Premier.  One  could  not  argue 
that  is  industrial  development. 

He  goes  on  with  a  tax  incentives  policy. 
It  is  a  most  curious  statement  in  this  review 
by  the  Treasurer.  He  said:  "My  ministry 
reviews  our  incentive  programs  on  an  on- 
going basis.  These  reviews  are  carefully  done 
and  are  instructive."  Now  get  this:  "How- 
ever, I  believe  a  more  comprehensive  analy- 
sis should  now  be  undertaken,  and  I  have 
instructed  staff  to  commence  this  review 
immediately." 

Either  he  is  doing  good  work  or  he  is  not 
doing  work.  Obviously  he  is  not  doing  good 
work.  As  I  said  earlier,  my  private  member's 
bill  passed  in  this  House,  yet  his  House 
leader  has  never  called  it  forward  for  third 
reading.   My  bill  said  we  should  have  pub- 


4272 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


lished  tax  expenditure  studies  so  we  know 
exactly  where  every  forgiven  dollar  is  going 
and  can  analyse  whether  that  is  the  best  in- 
vestment on  behalf  of  the  taxpayers  of  this 
province.  I  support  that.  I  hope  we  see  more 
than  just  words  from  him. 

His  buy-Canadian  policy,  as  I  told  him 
before,  it  is  a  straight  lift  out  of  the  quite  bril- 
liant industrial  strategy  published  by  my 
leader  about  a  year  and  a  half  ago.  I  was 
proud  to  be  associated  with  that.  It  is  in- 
teresting that  over  the  two  or  so  years  that  it 
has  been  out  it  has  stood  up  to  the  most 
rigorous  kind  of  scrutiny.  It  has  weathered 
well  with  age.  It  is  as  meaningful  now  as  it 
was  then.  It  is  substantive.  It  is  sound. 

It  is  worth  while  and  shows  far  more 
vision— from  our  limited  research  staff  and 
the  people  who  work  with  us— than  what  the 
ministers  whole  bloody  bureaucracy  could 
produce,  or  has  produced  at  this  point.  That 
shows  that  if  we  can  get  our  hooks  on  that 
bureaucracy  to  function  the  way  we  think 
it  should  function  with  new  energy,  new 
initiative  and  new  political  guts,  we  can  turn 
it  from  the  dispirited,  disgruntled  lot  it  is 
now  working  for  the  Treasurer,  into  a  crea- 
tive force  for  the  betterment  of  the  tax- 
payers of  the  province. 
9:30  p.m. 

The  most  outrageous  section  I  have  here 
is  one  entitled,  "Sensitivity  to  Social  Prior- 
ities." My  God,  one  would  almost  think  the 
Treasurer  had  a  heart  by  reading  the  titles 
to  this.  Then  he  goes  on  to  say:  "Let  others 
tax  those  who  can  least  afford  it,  let  others 
acquiesce  to  inequity  and  economic  injustice; 
this  Conservative  government,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Honourable  William  G.  Davis, 
will  not."  Noble  words,  noble  words. 

The  Treasurer  is  the  one  who  snookered 
the  poor  old  people  out  of  their  rightful  en- 
titlement. The  Treasurer  is  the  one  who  did 
it  all— all  in  the  name  of  equity  and  fairness. 
The  first  thing  we  will  do  when  we  get  into 
government  is  rectify  that  inequity  he  has 
created,  again  for  his  political  gain.  There  is 
not  a  lot  of  money;  it  is  only  about  $10  mil- 
lion. He  could  have  efforded  it  with  all  these 
outrageous  programs  he  has  outlined. 

The  fiscal  integrity  of  this  province  has 
been  even  further  distorted.  I  do  not  believe 
that  this  Treasurer  cares  about  a  balanced 
budget.  I  think  it  is  just  rhetoric.  He  hauls 
it  out  to  his  right-wing  friends  at  his  right- 
wing  meetings,  if  it  serves  his  political  pur- 
poses at  any  given  time,  because  there  has 
been  a  major  perversion  from  that  phi- 
losophy. 


We  are  still  paying  almost  $4.5  million  a 
day  in  interest.  We  are  up  over  $1  billion 
again  in  terms  of  budgetary  deficit.  Again, 
we  are  going  to  have  to  rape  the  pension 
fund  and  again  defer  our  problems  on  to 
future  generations  of  taxpayers.  We  are  now 
over  the  $l-billion  figure  for  the  deficit;  and 
this  has  been  a  major  disappointment  to  us. 

We  would  spend  taxpayers'  money  on  a 
number  of  things.  We  have  three  priorities 
in  this  party  right  now.  The  first  one  is  to 
create  wealth  in  this  province  by  building 
the  manufacturing  base  and  to  that  end  we 
have  a  number  of  specific  proposals.  Second, 
we  would  protect  those  people  in  society 
least  able  to  protect  themselves  from  the 
ravages  of  inflation  and  other  economic  poli- 
cies. Third,  we  would  cut  out  the  unneces- 
sary and  stupid  expenditures  this  government 
has  made  in  a  number  of  areas  over  the 
years.  I  refer  to  the  hundreds  of  millions  of 
dollars  of  land  banked,  to  Minaki  Lodge,  to 
advertising  of  his  ill-conceived  programs- 
there  are  so  many  areas. 

It  is  not  as  if  those  moneys  are  not  there 
to  be  employed  creatively,  because  we  think 
they  are,  and  we  would  do  it  without  bring- 
ing on  the  major  fiscal  distortions  that  my 
friends  to  the  left  do  not  even  understand  or 
care  about,  because  we  do  believe  in  fiscal 
responsibility.  Within  the  budgetary  context 
of  Ontario  we  could  do  it.  I  can  promise 
that. 

But  there  has  been  failure  to  deal  with 
skills  training,  with  research  and  develop- 
ment, with  a  manufacturing  base,  with  re- 
tooling, with  developing  indigenous  industry 
in  electronics,  machine  tools,  food  processing, 
communication  and  all  those  other  areas  that 
we  have  a  natural  structural  advantage  for. 
The  failure  to  recognize  we  have  a  problem 
and  to  do  anything  about  it  is  going  to  kill 
this  government. 

The  formerly  most  respected  treasury  in 
this  country  had  national  clout  and  national 
power.  When  our  Treasurers  went  to  Ottawa, 
Ottawa  listened.  But  the  treasury  has  now 
been  diminished  under  this  Treasurer's  auth- 
ority—not only  in  Ottawa  but  here  with  the 
voters  too.  People  understand  that. 

There  is  a  widespread  malaise  in  this 
province.  There  is  deep  economic  insecurity. 
There  is  a  deep  disgruntlement  with  the 
government  and  its  ability  to  manage  the 
economic  problems  of  this  province.  I  have 
never  felt  more  confident  in  my  political 
career  that  people  are  looking  for  substantial 
and  reasonable  alternatives.  This  rules  out 
my  friends  to  the  left  and  puts  us  clearly 
in  the  driver's  seat  today.  It  is  not  too  far 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4273 


away  that  we  are  going  to  form  the  govern- 
ment; mark  my  words. 

Our  leader  has  brought  creative  leadership 
to  this  party  and  to  the  office  of  Her 
Majesty's  loyal  opposition.  Members  should 
just  watch  next  spring  after  all  these  little 
programs  of  the  government  run  out  and  we 
have  an  election.  They  should  watch  who  is 
coming  back  to  sit  on  that  side  of  the  House 
to  bring  some  new  vitality  and  energy  to 
the  economic  growth  of  this  province. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  show 
a  great  deal  of  restraint  and  address  my  re- 
marks to  the  Treasurer's  mini-budget  rather 
than  to  the  remarks  of  the  member  for  Lon- 
don Centre. 

I  would  just  say  quickly,  though,  before 
I  get  too  involved  in  the  mini-budget,  that  it 
does  take  a  lot  of  courage  to  stand  up  in  this 
House  as  a  Liberal  following  the  federal 
Liberal  budget  of  a  couple  of  weeks  ago  and 
to  criticize  anybody's  budget,  let  alone  the 
Tories  in  Ontario.  It  does  take  a  lot  of  cour- 
age. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  am  surprised  the 
member  for  London  Centre  did  not  just 
stand  in  his  place  and  give  us  a  eulogy  of 
the  Liberal  budget  so  he  will  receive  a  formal 
welcome  if  he  ever  decides  to  move  to 
Ottawa; 

Mr.  Roy:  "Move  aside,  we  are  coming 
through,"  Floyd  says. 

Mr.  Laughren:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  Will 
say  it  again:  Move  aside,  we  are  coming 
through. 

Mr.  Bradley:  Are  you  moving  no  con- 
fidence? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Perhaps  if  the  member  will 
listen  to  my  remarks  he  will  understand 
exactly  how  this  caucus  feels  about  this  bud- 
get. I  will  ask  him  to  listen  for  a  few 
moments. 

This  budget  —  sorry,  "supplementary  ac- 
actions"  I  understand  the  Treasurer  would 
prefer  to  have  it  called— these  supplementary 
actions  do  not  do  anyone  in  Ontario  any 
harm  but  they  do  not  help  those  people  who 
need  it  the  most  either.  The  same  can  be 
said  for  individuals  as  for  the  economy  as 
a  whole.  It  does  not  do  the  economy  any 
harm  to  cut  regressive  taxes.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  does  it  some  good.  It  does  not 
do  any  harm  to  individuals  to  cut  taxes  that 
should  not  be  there  in  the  first  place.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  it  does  some  good.  But 
it  does  not  solve  the  underlying  problems 
in  the  Ontario  economy.  Naturally,  we  in 
this  party  understand  there  are  some  parts 
of  these   actions   we  must  support  and  that 


indeed  we  would  have  implemented  a  long 
time  ago. 

This  speech  of  the  Treasurer's  tonight  was 
supposed  to  be  a  response  to  the  federal 
budget  of  a  couple  of  weeks  ago.  That  is 
what  the  Treasurer  told  us.  We  agreed,  and 
still  do,  that  there  is  a  need  to  respond  to 
that  federal  Liberal  budget,  which  was  really 
more  of  an  energy  statement  than  a  budget. 

I  understand,  too,  why  the  Treasurer 
wants  to  put  as  much  distance  as  quickly 
as  possible  between  his  government  and  the 
Liberal  government  in  Ottawa.  We  under- 
stand that.  They  have  seemed  to  be  too 
cosy  for  too  long  and  it  is  time  to  put  some 
distance  between  them.  I  am  surprised  they 
did  not  make  the  distance  greater  and  do 
so  at  greater  speed. 

We  agree  with  the  Treasurer  that  the  tax 
cuts  are  necessary  at  this  time  and  that  they 
not  only  will  provide  relief  to  taxpayers, 
because  those  were  regressive,  but  will  also 
provide  a  short-term  stimulus  to  the  Ontario 
economy. 

The  Treasurer  one  week  ago  yesterday  at 
the  opening  of  his  Treasury  estimates  said 
his  mini-budget  was  going  to  be  a  response 
to  the  cyclical  problems  of  the  Ontario 
economy.  He  used  the  term  "cyclical  prob- 
lems". If  the  Treasurer  really  believes  that 
Ontario's  economic  problems  are  cyclical, 
then  I  suppose  one  could  say  his  statement 
tonight  does  something  to  address  the 
cyclical  problems,  assuming  of  course  that 
the  cycle  lasts  between  now  and  next  spring. 
9:40  p.m. 

We  know  we  are  not  into  those  kinds  of 
economic  difficulties;  the  Treasurer  will 
admit  that.  At  one  moment  he  is  castigating 
the  federal  Liberal  budget  because  it  does 
not  address  itself  to  the  structural  problems 
of  this  country,  and  the  next  moment  he  is 
telling  us  he  is  going  to  bring  supplementary 
actions  in  that  will  address  themselves  to  the 
cyclical  problems  of  the  Ontario  economy. 
Where  is  the  consistency  in  that?  I  do  not 
know  of  any  two  Ministers  of  Finance  or 
Treasurer;  who  deserve  each  more  than  this 
Treasurer  and  his  counterpart  in  Ottawa, 
MacEachsn. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  You  have  been  nasty 
before,  but  this  is  going  too  far. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  layoffs  of  thousands  of 
workers  this  year  are  a  result  of  the  struc- 
tural deformities  in  the  Ontario  economy. 
The  Treasurer  does  not  seem  to  understand 
that.  A  branch  plant  economy,  one  whose 
owners  can  repatriate  at  will— just  ask  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  about 
what  the  owners  of  the  branch  plants  in  this 


4274 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


province  can  do  if  they  want  to.  In  his  profit 
centre  booklet,  he  stated  very  clearly  there 
are  no  restrictions  on  what  they  do  with 
their  capital.  So  what  do  the  owners  of  the 
branch  plants  do?  They  shut  down  their 
plants  and  repatriate  their  capital,  just  as 
they  are  invited  to  do  by  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  in  that  booklet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Bob  White  asked  for 
more  branch  plants. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Why  do  you  not  stop  be- 
ing silly  for  once? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  is  one  of  the  causes 
of  the  structural  deformities  in  this  province 
by  inviting  ever  more  foreign  control  of  the 
Ontario  economy.  That  is  what  he  is  doing 
rather  than  understanding  that  one  of  the 
real  problems  with  the  Ontario  economy  is 
the  fact  that,  for  example,  our  exports  are 
built,  aside  from  autos,  on  fabricated  ma- 
terials and  raw  resources.  That  is  not  a  good 
way  to  build  an  economy. 

Our  imports  are  manufactured  goods.  This 
country  had  a  deficit  of  $17  billion  last  year, 
up  $5  billion  in  one  year,  and  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  is  doing  nothing 
about  that.  All  he  seems  to  think  is  that  if 
he  gets  out  there  and  sells  Ontario  to  the 
world  our  problems  will  go  away.  He  is 
fooling  none  of  us  at  all  with  his  glossy 
document,  his  expensive  packaging.  That 
profit  centre  booklet  was  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  in  bound  form;  nothing 
more,  nothing  less.  That  is  exactly  the  way 
he  is— glossy,   fast-talking  and  slick. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  All  plastic. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  was  what  that  was, 
and  that's  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism. He  is  the  pink  flamingo  of  the  Tory 
cabinet 

Mr.  Foulds:  Seventeen-doliar  pencil  cases. 
That  is  what  the  minister  puts  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Bob  White  thinks  it's 
great.  He  wants  more  foreign  investment. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No,  no.  Not  true.  The 
minister  is  thinking  of  the  member  for 
Sarnia  (Mr.  Blundy),  who  thinks  there  should 
be  more  branch  plants  in  Ontario. 

Not  only  are  there  structural  problems, 
which  have  been  there  for  some  time,  but 
also  the  government  has  sat  idly  by  and  not 
even  monitored  very  carefully  what  is  going 
on.  It  is  not  as  though  this  is  a  new  problem. 
We  are  held  up  to  ransom  when  somebody 
like  Ford  says:  "We  will  either  build  our 
plant  in  Windsor  or  some  other  place.  We 
have  grants  from   some  other  place;   so  you 


had  better  give  it  to  us."  We  are  held  up  for 
ransom  in  the  pulp  and  paper  industry  where, 
and  let  me  be  very  specific  about  this,  the 
Treasurer  told  all  of  us  those  grants  were 
absolutely  necessary  for  us  to  remain  com- 
petitive. That  is  how  far  the  Treasurer  and 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  and 
others  in  the  government  allowed  the  state 
of  the  pulp  and  paper  industry  to  deteriorate 
before  they  moved  in  and  did  anything  about 
it  at  all.  They  are  the  ones  who  sat  back 
and  watched  the  industrial  machine  called 
Ontario  wind  down  and  did  nothing  about  it 
until  it  became  a  crisis  situation.  Then  he 
says,  "Look,  we  either  have  to  do  this  or 
the  thing  goes  down  the  pipe  and  the  com- 
munities are  threatened."  That  is  some  kind 
of  economic  stewardship  for  Ontario.  He 
failed  even  to  monitor  the  situation  carefully. 

This  government  will  forever  be  slapping 
Band-Aids  on  the  problems  rather  than  prac- 
tising preventive  economic  care.  That  is 
what  it  has  failed  to  do.  It  is  almost  as 
though  it  was  transposing  the  economic 
problems  from  the  health  care  system  where 
preventive  care  has  virtually  no  role  at  all. 

We  in  this  party  are  eternal  optimists.  We 
are  very  optimistic  about  our  confidence  to 
turn  the  economy  of  Ontario  around.  We  are 
not  the  purveyors  of  doom  and  gloom;  the)' 
are  the  Tories  themselves,  not  us.  We  happen 
to  believe  we  can  turn  adversity  into  oppor- 
tunity, but  we  know  that  to  do  that  we  must 
plan  carefully  and  act  courageously.  We 
would  be  prepared  to  do  that.  We  agree 
there  is  an  element  of  risk  whenever  one 
does  that  but  we  think  it  simply  must  be 
done. 

I  would  like  to  remind  the  Treasurer  of  a 
few   things   that  we  think  should'  be  done. 

One  reason  we  are  so  upset  about  the 
Treasurer's  BILD  program  announced  in  his 
budget  tonight— someone  referred  to  it  as  a 
bilge  program— is  it  is  nothing  but  a  delaying 
tactic  to  allow  the  Treasurer  to  sit  idly  by 
yet  again  and  hope  that  the  US  economy 
improves,  that  we  will  get  some  slopover 
benefit  and  that  things  will  pick  up  in  this 
province.  That  is  all  he  is  trying  to  do  with 
his  BILD  program.  I  will  tell  the  Treasurer 
why  I  am  so  sure  of  that. 

He  says  he  is  going  to  have  the  BILD 
program  look  at  some  specific  sectors  that 
need  to  be  encouraged.  We  could  give  sector 
after  sector  that  needs  to  be  rebuilt.  There 
needs  to  be  no  further  identification  of  the 
sectors  that  are  in  trouble  in  Ontario:  sectors 
that  are  high  technology,  sectors  where  we 
have  a  large  degree  of  imports,  sectors  that 
are  high  technology  and  provide  skilled  jobs. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4275 


We  know  those.  Those  have  already  been 
identified  and  we  have  raised  them  with  the 
Treasurer  time  and  time  again. 

For  example,  the  auto  parts  sector:  We  had 
a  $4-billion  deficit  in  auto  parts  last  year, 
which  we  all  look  after  in  Ontario.  Those 
are  skilled  jobs,  high-technology  jobs.  Ob- 
viously they  are  imports.  It  would  relieve  a 
lot  of  the  economic  problems  in  the  Windsor 
area  if  the  Treasurer  would  Canadianize  and 
rebuild  that  particular  sector.  It  is  a  crucial 
sector,  and  the  Treasurer  should  be  doing 
something  about  it.  He  does  nothing  except 
complain  to  Ottawa  that  we  are  not  getting 
our  fair  share. 

How  long  will  he  say  the  problem  is 
Ottawa's  and  not  his  own?  He  knows  the 
problem  will  go  on  forever  if  he  leaves  it 
to  those  people  in  Ottawa  to  solve  his  prob- 
lems in  Ontario.  They  are  preoccupied  with 
repatriating  the  constitution  rather  than  the 
economy.  They  are  not  going  to  worry  about 
Ontario.  When  is  the  Treasurer  going  to 
wake  up  and  realize  that? 

A  second  sector  that  needs  to  be  rebuilt— 
just  so  I  can  get  some  of  the  work  load  off 
his  BILD  program— is  the  mining  machinery 
sector.  I  know  the  Treasurer  said  in  the  esti- 
mates debate  the  other  day  that  he  under- 
stands mining  machinery.  He  said  he  knew 
we  were  number  one  in  the  world  in  import- 
ing mining  machinery,  number  two  in  the 
world  in  the  consumption  of  mining  machin- 
ery and  number  three  in  the  world  in  the 
production  of  minerals.  Imagine  being  num- 
ber three  in  all  the  world  in  the  production 
of  minerals  and  number  one  in  importing 
mining  machinery. 

What  an  outrageous  situation,  and  yet  the 
Treasurer  does  not  a  single  thing  about  it. 
The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  put 
on  a  trade  show  in  Sudbury  where  $40  mil- 
lion or  $50  million  worth  of  machinery  was 
on  display.  That  was  his  answer,  just  as  the 
BILD  program  is  the  Treasurer's  answer.  It 
is  a  sham.  It  is  like  the  old  pea  under  the 
shell  game,  but  there  is  no  pea  under  the 
shell.  We  are  just  moving  around  empty 
shells.  That  is  fraudulent. 

If  one  looks  at  mining  machinery,  there 
is  a  regional  development  component  there 
for  northern  Ontario  if  only  the  Treasurer 
would  use  it.  There  is  a  component  of  highly 
skilled  jobs.  It  is  a  high-technology  area. 
Ontario  alone  had  imports  last  year  of  about 
$175  million.  There  is  enormous  job  creation 
potential  there  in  the  mining  machinery  area. 
Think  of  what  it  would  do  for  communities 
such  as  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  North  Bay  and 
Sudbury.  To  make  it  worse,  a  month  or  so 


ago,  Jarvis  Clark,  one  of  the  big  companies 
that  produces  mining  machinery  in  North 
Bay,  decided  it  was  going  to  expand.  They 
cannot  handle  all  the  orders,  they  have  tre- 
mendous export  orders  as  well;  and  what  do 
they  do?  They  expand  in  Burlington,  not  in 
northern  Ontario.  One  reason  they  did  is 
that  there  is  no  regional  economic  develop- 
ment plan  into  which  they  could  plug  to  help 
develop  northern  Ontario.  There  is  nothing 
there. 

9:50  p.m. 

Regional  development  has  to  be  a  priority. 
There  was  a  day  when  regional  development 
was  a  priority  of  this  government.  There  was 
a  day  when  no  budget  would  have  been 
brought  down  without  a  special  section  for 
northern  Ontario.  There  is  not  a  word  this 
time.  They  even  talk  about  exploration  and 
development  in  central  Ontario,  for  heaven's 
sake. 

Another  area  that  has  an  enormous  amount 
of  potential  is  the  whole  question  of  these 
massive  energy  projects,  most  of  them  out 
west,  that  are  going  to  be  taking  place  in 
the  next  10  years.  The  opportunity  for  us  to 
provide  the  equipment  and  machinery  is 
awesome. 

A  report  by  the  Canadian  Institute  for 
Economic  Policy  stated  there  is  going  to  be 
a  total  of  $67  billion  worth  of  machinery 
and  equipment  required  between  1980  and 
1990,  in  just  10  years.  There  is  absolutely 
no  reason  why  we  should  not  have  a  part  of 
that. 

There  are  two  major  categories,  and  I 
would  like  to  quote  very  briefly  from  that 
report;  they  are  talking  about  two  new 
categories:  "Projects  that  are  new  to  Can- 
adian and  global  experience.  These  will  in- 
clude oil  sands  and  heavy  oil,  where  Canada 
is  already  a  world  leader,  frontier  and  off- 
shore field  development  and  the  more  promis- 
ing of  the  renewable  energy  technologies. 
These  sectors  provide  opportunities  to  de- 
velop an  indigenous  technology  base  with 
export  potential.  Maximizing  Canadian  par- 
ticipation from  the  start  in  these  new  markets 
will  be  vastly  preferable  to  letting  these  op- 
portunities slip  into  other  hands." 

That  is  what  is  going  to  happen.  Those 
will  be  opportunities  we  will  lose  as  long  as 
the  Treasurer  keeps  laying  down  delaying 
tactics  and  smokescreens  like  BILD  which 
will  not  address  themselves  immediately  to 
the  problems.  They  are  not  going  to  wait. 
Those  projects  are  there  now  for  the  having 
but  the  Treasurer  says  he  is  going  to  de- 
velop   a   five-year   plan.    I    never   thought    I 


4276 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


would    see    the    day    when    this    Treasurer 
would  talk  about  five-year  plans. 

Ontario  has  too  much  at  stake.  We  cannot 
stand  back  and  wait  for  Ottawa  to  develop  a 
national  investment  strategy.  That  is  what 
is  needed  so  that  we  have  a  leverage  with 
our  resources  to  machinery.  We  have  never 
had  that.  We  never  had  it  in  Ontario,  we 
never  had  it  in  this  country  at  all;  and  that 
is  what  is  necesary.  Norway  does  it;  Britain 
does  it,  very  successfully;  but  not  this  coun- 
try. I  agree  it  should  be  a  national  policy, 
but  we  are  not  going  to  get  it  from  those 
people  in  Ottawa.  We  are  the  industrial 
base;  so  we  have  to  take  the  initiative  here 
or  we  will  lose  it. 

Tt  is  as  simple  as  that.  That  is  why  I  say 
we  can  turn  our  problems  into  tremendous 
opportunities  and  potential  for  developing 
this  province.  We  are  very  optimistic  about 
the  future  as  long  as  we  take  action,  but  it 
is  not  going  to  happen  on  its  own. 

I  know  the  Treasurer  is  very  fond  of  the 
invisible  hand  out  there  in  the  marketplace, 
but  that  invisible  hand  is  not  doing  what  the 
Treasurer  or  any  of  us  think  it  should  do. 
We  cannot  wait  for  that  invisible  hand  any 
mo**.  Tt  is  a  myth;  it  is  a  withered  hand. 

What  I  am  trying  to  say  to  the  Treasurer 
is  that  he  cannot  forever  bemoan  inaction  on 
the  part  of  the  federal  government.  That  is 
not  an  adequate  action;  it  is  downright 
dumb. 

I  get  particularly  offended  at  the  Treasurer 
"'hen  he  falls  back  on  his  free  enterprise 
-hetoric.  That  is  most  offensive.  One  minute 
he  is  handing  out  grants  to  the  private 
sector,  and  the  next  minute  he  is  spewing 
forth  his  free  enterprise  rhetoric.  It  would  be 
funnv  if  it  were  not  so  irrelevant  and  if  it 
were  not  so  downright  illogical.  Most  par- 
ticularly, it  would  be  funny  if  the  Treasurer 
did  not  take  it  so  seriously.  It  is  not  going 
to  happen  with  the  private  sector;  we  have 
had  all  sorts  of  evidence  of  that. 

I  do  not  want  to  burden  the  Treasurer 
wr'th  too  much  statistics,  but  I  Want  to  give 
him  a  couple  of  examples  of  those  energy 
investment  potentials. 

Between  1970  and  1980,  a  10-year  period, 
there  has  already  been  a  lot  of  investment  in 
energy-related  fields,  and  there  is  going  to  be 
more.  Statistics  Canada  is  giving  us  figures 
every  month  of  the  year  which  tell  us  the 
problem,  which  lays  it  all  out  before  us,  and 
a  person  doesn't  have  to  be  an  economist  to 
read  the  tables. 

I  would  like  to  tell  the  Treasurer  about 
just  one  area,  imports,  and  what  happened  to 
imports  of  energy-related  equipment  between 


1970  and  1980;  for  hydraulic  turbines  and 
parts,  imports  went  from  $2  million  to  $30 
million;  gas  turbines,  from  $10  million  to 
$26  million;  well-drilling  machinery,  from 
$39  million  to  $300  million;  petroleum  and 
gas  field  production  equipment,  from  $11 
million  to  $96  million;  valves,  from  $44  mil- 
lion to  $101  million;  fittings,  from  $33  million 
to  $120  million;  zirconium  alloys,  from  $3.6 
million  to  $13  million;  diesel  and  semidiesel 
engines  and  parts,  from  $25  million  to  $133 
million;  and  construction  equipment,  from 
$167  million  to  $721  million. 

That  is  what  happened  with  import  in- 
creases on  machinery  and  equipment  that  we 
could  be  supplying  for  our  energy  projects. 
Ontario  could  be  supplying  a  lot  of  that  but, 
oh  no,  the  Treasurer  stands  back  and  thinks 
it  is  all  going  to  be  solved,  and  he  lays  down 
yet  another  smokescreen. 

I  am  just  saying  we  have  the  economic 
muscle  and  the  political  muscle  in  this  prov- 
ince to  do  something  about  it.  All  we  have 
lacked  till  now,  and  still  lack,  is  the  political 
will  to  get  in  there  and  mix  it  up  and  do 
something  about  it,  and  that  is  what  the 
Treasurer  has  failed  to  do. 

I  heard  the  Treasurer  read  in  his  statement 
tonight,  for  example,  that  manufacturing  in- 
vestment intentions  are  up  44  per  cent  in 
1980.  Perhaps  he  will  stop  using  that  figure 
and,  rather  than  talking  about  intentions,  start 
talking  about  what  is  really  happening.  Manu- 
facturing output  is  down  seven  per  cent  in 
1980,  and  it  is  forecast  to  be  down  another 
one  point  something  per  cent  in  1981.  I  will 
not  tell  the  Treasurer  which  road  is  paved 
with  good  intentions,  but  the  real  world  tells 
us  that  manufacturing  output  is  down  this 
year  and  is  going  to  be  down  again  next  year: 
the  Treasurer  should  stop  using  intention  fig- 
ures which  really  are  not  applicable. 

I  know  that  the  Treasurer  and  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  are  very  fond  of 
talking  about  creating  jobs  in  manufacturing, 
but  there  have  been  at  least  10  times  as  many 
layoffs  in  Ontario  this  year  as  there  have  been 
jobs  created.  That  is  a  sad  commentary  on 
what  is  going  on  in  the  province. 

I  have  outlined  just  a  few  sectors  that  we 
could  take  a  look  at,  and  I  did  not  even  talk 
about  housing.  We  have  a  real  problem  in 
rental  accommodation  and  we  have  high  un- 
employment in  the  residential  construction 
trades.  There  is  a  beautiful  tie-in  there.  But 
as  long  as  the  government  stands  back  and 
does  not  do  anything  about  that  either,  we 
are  not  going  to  solve  that  problem.  I  know 
the  Treasurer  is  cutting  the  tax  on  building 
materials.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  that;  I  think 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4277 


that  is  a  good  suggestion.  But  it  is  not  going 
to  address  itself  directly  to  the  rental  accom- 
modation problem  in  places  like  Metro  To- 
ronto, where  we  are  flirting  with  a  one  per 
cent  vacancy  rate,  which  is  virtually  none.  I 
can  see  the  pressures  coming  from  that  side 
to  remove  rent  review,  using  the  spurious 
argument  that  rent  review  is  causing  the  prob- 
lem of  supply  for  rental  accommodation.  What 
total  nonsense  that  is.  Why  do  they  think  we 
had  rent  review  in  the  first  place?  There  was 
no  rent  review  when  the  shortage  first  oc- 
curred; so  why  are  they  blaming  it  now?  It 
is  total  nonsense. 

There  are  a  number  of  serious  gaps  in  this 
mini-budget  tonight.  One  of  them  that  fascin- 
ated me  ties  in  with  the  new  Board  of  Indus- 
trial Leadership  and  Development;  I  refer  to 
the  Treasurer's  statement  that  he  is  going  to 
cancel  the  employment  development  fund 
program.  I  can  recall  how  over  the  last  two 
years  the  Treasurer  bragged  and  boasted 
about  how  EDF  was  the  cornerstone  of  their 
economic  development  program  in  Ontario. 
Every  time  we  would  say,  "You  are  not  doing 
enough,"  they  would  say,  "We  have  the  EDF 
program."  That  is  what  they  told  us.  Only  a 
week  ago,  in  my  leadoff,  I  was  asking  the 
Treasurer  in  his  estimates  about  EDF  grants. 
He  could  not  say  enough  good  things  about 
them,  how  they  had  saved  the  pulp  and  paper 
industry  and  how  they  had  stimulated  the 
auto  sector.  Tonight  he  pulls  the  rug  on  it. 
10  p.m. 

Is  there  no  consistency  in  the  Treasurer 
at  all?  One  has  to  wonder  what  happened. 
Was  it  the  Lakehead  report?  Did  the  Lake- 
head  report  shake  him  up?  Is  that  why  he 
said  there  are  too  many  questions  here?  Was 
it  his  free-enterprise  philosophy  that  said 
we  should  not  be  giving  out  these  grants? 
We  do  not  know,  do  we?  Was  it  the  feeling, 
as  expressed  in  that  report,  that  those  who 
need  it  were  not  getting  it? 

The  cancellation  of  the  sales  tax  on  build- 
ing materials  is  something  of  which  we 
approve.  This  party  would  be  much  happier, 
however,  if  the  Treasurer  had  made  a  com- 
mitment to  nonprofit  housing  and  co-op 
housing  where  there  is  a  tremend^"s  oppor- 
tunity to  take  some  of  the  pressures  off 
rental  accommodation  in  places  like  Metro 
Toronto.  That  is  where  the  thrust  should 
be.  Once  again,  it  would  create  jobs  and 
relieve  some  of  the  high  unemployment  in 
the  residential  building  trades,  professions 
and  jobs.  As  I  say,  it  would  also  take  the 
pressure  off  rental  accommodation. 

The  Treasurer  used  some  rather  strange 
language   when   he   talked   about   protecting 


people  on  low  incomes.  He  said:  "Unlike 
the  Liberal  government  in  Ottawa,  we  in- 
tend to  respect  social  priorities  and  values 
while  keeping  our  own  fiscal  industrial 
priorities  in  clear  focus.  Let  others  tax  those 
who  can  least  afford  it,  let  others  acquiesce 
to  inequity  and  economic  injustice." 

That  is  pretty  hard  to  swallow,  coming 
from  a  government  that  has  taxed  people 
in  this  province  more  heavily  than  any  other 
province  in  Canada.  Personal  taxes  in  On- 
tario are  higher  than  in  any  other  province. 
If  we  add  together  provincial  income  tax 
and  Ontario  health  insurance  plan  payments 
and  subtract  from  that  tax  rebates  and 
credits,  we  end  up  with  Ontario  being  the 
highest-taxed  province  in  all  of  Canada  for 
people  in  low-  and  middle-income  brackets 
—not  the  high-income  people,  but  low-  and 
middle-income  brackets.  That  is  assuming  a 
constant  property  tax  in  every  province. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  that  we  are  over- 
taxed. When  the  Treasurer  says  that  and, 
at  the  same  time,  refuses  to  do  anything  for 
people  who  need  help  the  most,  it  really  is 
hypocritical.  The  same  day  the  Minister  of 
Labour  stands  in  his  place  and  says  he  is 
not  going  to  raise  the  minimum  wage. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  didn't  say  that. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  he  did.  We  have 
gone  22  months  now  with  no  increase  in  the 
minimum  wage,  and  the  Minister  of  Labour 
would  make  no  commitment  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  didn't  say  that. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Did  he  make  a  commit- 
ment today  to  raise  the  minimum  wage?  No. 
He  made  no  commitment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Don't  distort  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Make  it  now.  Here  is  the 
opportunity. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Carry  on.  I  didn't  say 
that  today,  and  the  member  knows  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  I  will  carry  on.  It  is 
an  absolute  disgrace  for  Ontario  to  have 
the  lowest  minimum  wage  in  all  Canada. 
There  is  simply  no  excuse  for  that.  This 
budget  provides  no  direct  relief  for  low- 
income  people.  At  the  same  time  as  we  have 
the  lowest  minimum  wage,  we  have  the 
heaviest  tax  burden  on  low-  and  middle- 
income  people.  Put  all  those  things  together 
and  it  makes  the  Treasurer's  words  ring 
pretty  hollow.  That  is  simply  not  playing 
according  to  the  rules. 

I  searched  through  the  budget  document 
for  a  statement  on  day  care.  There  has  been 
an  enormous  amount  of  pressure  applied 
to  the  government  throughout  Metro 
Toronto    and   other   communities   to  provide 


4278 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


adequate  day  care  in  Ontario.  If  my  memory 
serves  me  correctly,  the  number  of  places 
required  in  Metro  Toronto  just  to  ease  the 
most  critical  burden  was  1,400,  and  then  a 
compromise  was  worked  out  by  the  Metro 
chairman  for  500  places  for  Metro  Toronto 
alone.  What  the  Treasurer  has  said  tonight 
is  that  he  is  going  to  provide  500  extra 
places  for  all  of  Ontario. 

It  is  interesting  that  we  get  from  this 
government  no  policies  at  all  to  provide  any 
kind  of  economic  justice  for  women,  no  com- 
mitment to  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value,  no  commitment  to  day  care,  no  real 
affirmative  action  program  on  the  part  of 
the  government,  none. 

Is  it  not  interesting  that  when  this  party 
introduced  three  bills  tied  in  with  economic 
rights,  the  government  blocked  them.  One 
dealt  with  full  employment  and  the  govern- 
ment blocked  it;  they  would  not  even  let  it 
come  to  a  vote.  When  we  dealt  with  pension 
rights  and  job  security,  the  government 
blocked  it  and  would  not  even  let  it  come 
to  a  vote.  Today,  when  we  tried  to  bring  in 
a  bill  that  would  provide  a  modicum  of 
economic  justice  for  women,  the  government 
blocked  it  and  would  not  let  that  come  for 
a  vote  either.  What  kind  of  commitment  is 
that  to  economic  justice?  When  I  see  the 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 
(Mrs.  Birch)  standing  there  to  block  a  bill 
like  that,  it  makes  me  wonder  about  the 
priorities  over  there. 

The  Treasurer  has  done  this  province  an 
injustice  with  his  failure  to  provide  an  ade- 
quate number  of  day  care  places  in  the 
province,  and  that  is  a  very  serious  injustice. 
I  believe  Women  now  constitute  about  40 
per  cent  of  the  work  force  in  the  province, 
and  the  government  does  not  seem  to  have 
woken  up  to  that.  They  do  not  seem  to  un- 
derstand the  kind  of  needs  and  pressures 
that  puts  on  people;  so  they  dawdle  on  and 
throw  $1  million  to  day  care  when  the  de- 
mand is  so  much  greater. 

It  is  not  as  though  there  were  not  op- 
portunities to  raise  more  money.  Some  of 
our  programs  we  talk  about  cost  money. 
Most  of  the  ones  I  have  talked  about  tonight 
would  create  wealth  so  that  we  could  get  on 
with  the  business  of  distributing  it  in  a  more 
equitable  manner.  We  believe  very  strongly 
that  a  government  has  to  create  wealth 
before  it  can  distribute  it.  What  this  govern- 
ment fails  to  understand  is  that,  unless  they 
get  busy  and  start  creating  the  wealth  by 
rebuilding  those  sectors,  we  are  not  going 
to  be  able  to  redistribute  it  fairly. 


It  is  no  wonder  the  government  has  all 
these  pressures  on  social  services  and  educa- 
tional services,  because  the  Treasurer  will 
not  do  anything  about  creating  the  wealth 
that  is  necessary.  The  Conservative  back- 
benchers sitting  there  in  their  grey  splendour 
would  have  a  much  easier  life  and  would 
get  along  much  better  with  their  constituents 
if  they  could  convince  the  Treasurer  of  what 
is  needed.  We  need  meaningful  job  creation 
projects  out  there  that  would  create  wealth 
and  ease  the  burden  on  all  those  social, 
health  and  educational  services  that  have 
been  cut  back.  The  Treasurer  can  talk  all 
he  likes  about  not  cutting  back,  but  there 
have  been  very  serious  cutbacks  in  social, 
health  and  educational  services. 

One  of  the  areas  I  hope  the  Treasurer  will 
think  about— there  is  no  mention  of  it  in  his 
budget— is  the  whole  question  of  interest 
rates.  Right  now,  interest  rates  on  mortgages 
are,  I  believe,  about  two  per  cent  higher 
than  they  were  a  year  ago  at  this  time  and 
there  are  predictions  that  they  are  going  to 
go  higher.  Surely  the  government  should 
have  a  mechanism  to  monitor  defaults  and 
foreclosures. 

We  presented  a  package  to  the  govern- 
ment last  spring  which  could  relieve  the 
problem.  It  would  have  cost  around  $20  mil- 
lion I  believe,  and  it  was  income-related.  It 
was  a  sensible  program,  it  was  not  particu- 
larly expensive,  and  it  would  solve  the  most 
pressing  problems.  The  Treasurer  should  take 
another  look  at  our  proposals,  because  he 
may  have  to  implement  those  in  the  not-too- 
distant  future. 

Another  area  that  bothers  me  about  this 
budget  is  that  there  is  nothing  at  all  in  it 
for  northern  Ontario.  I  said  earlier  there  was 
a  day  when  no  Treasurer  would  have 
brought  in  a  budget  that  did  not  make  some 
concessions  to  northern  Ontario,  that  did  not 
recognize  the  particular  problems  that  are 
faced  in  northern  Ontario.  This  budget  does 
not  talk  about  freight  rates  which  cause 
problems  in  northern  Ontario;  it  does  not 
talk  about  further  processing  of  minerals  in 
northern  Ontario;  it  does  not  talk  about  the 
opportunities  for  mining  machinery  invest- 
ment in  northern  Ontario;  it  does  not  talk 
about  the  whole  problem  of  iron  development 
in  northern  Ontario. 

10:10  p.m. 

There  is  nothing  at  all  about  the  north. 
There  was  a  day  when  no  Tory  government 
would  have  dared  to  do  that.  But  lately  the 
Treasurer  seems  to  think  the  north  is  just  fine 
and  he  does  not  need  to  pay  any  attention 
to  it.  That  is  simply  not  right.  Not  only  that, 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4279 


but  also  there  is  still  no  food  terminal  for 
Timmins. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Alan  Pope  should  resign. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  member  for  Cochrane 
South  (Hon.  Mr.  Pope)  is  the  minister  with- 
out a  food  terminal.  I  want  to  see  him  on 
television  and  radio  in  Timmins  explaining 
why  there  is  still  no  food1  terminal  in  Tim- 
mins. He  promised  one  in  1977.  He  said, 
"You  elect  me  and  there  will  be  a  food  ter- 
minal." Here  we  are,  heading  for  1981,  and 
there  is  still  no  food  terminal  in  Timmins. 
We  know  what  happened.  He  complained 
loudly  from  the  back  benches,  and  the 
Premier  said,  "Come  here,  Alan." 

Mr.  Hennessy:  He  gave  him  a  cabinet 
post. 

Mr.  Laughren:  He  gave  him  a  cabinet  post. 
Exactly.  The  member  for  Fort  William  (Mr. 
Hennessy)  understands  how  it  works.  The 
Premier  said:  "Come  here,  Alan.  You  are  in 
the  cabinet  now;  so  shut  up."  That  is  exactly 
what  happened. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  that  is  what  Alan  Pope 
has  done. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  is  right:  I  hope  the 
people  in  Timmins  start  writing  letters  to 
him  saying:  "Where  is  that  food  terminal 
that  was  going  to  distribute  goods  more  effi- 
ciently in  northeastern  Ontario?  Timmins 
needs  a  food  terminal."  I  have  not  heard  a 
word  from  the  member  for  Cochrane  South. 

I  have  talked  about  the  food  terminal  and 
about  northern  Ontario,  mentioning  specific 
cities,  but  I  am  serious  when  I  say  there  was 
a  day  when  this  government  would  not  dare 
to  bring  in  a  budget  that  did  not  deal  with 
regional  development.  When  they  were  talk- 
ing about  southwestern  Ontario,  there  was 
enormous  potential  in  southwestern  Ontario 
with  the  auto  parts  industry  and  food  pro- 
cessing. There  is  opportunity  all  over  this 
province,  but  the  Treasurer  does  not  see  it 
as  a  regional  development  problem.  I  have 
been  here  nine  years,  but  it  is  only  in  the 
last  couple  of  years— as  a  matter  of  fact, 
since  the  member  for  Muskoka  (Mr.  F.  S. 
Miller)  became  Treasurer— that  we  have 
stopped  hearing  about  regional  development 
and  about  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Or  eastern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Or  eastern  Ontario;  thank 
you. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Have  you  ever  heard  of  the 
Eastern    Ontario    Development    Corporation? 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  just  talked  about  eastern 
Ontario,  but  I  never  hear  the  Treasurer.  If 
the   Treasurer  were   serious   about  economic 


development  in  eastern  Ontario,  he  would 
have  made  a  specific  commitment  here  to- 
night to  develop  the  Ottawa  area  as  the 
Silicone  Valley  of  the  north  so  we  can  have 
a  high-technology  electronic  area  in  this 
province  second  to  none. 

Mr.  Sterling:  He  has  already  made  a 
commitment. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No.  He  made  no  commit- 
ment to  regional  economic  development  at 
all.  All  the  Treasurer  did  was  lay  down  a 
delaying  tactic.  That  is  all  he  did,  and  the 
member  for  Carleton-Granville  (Mr.  Sterling) 
knows  it. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  that  member  swallowed  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  is  another  area  I  am 
surprised  the  Treasurer  made  no  mention  of 
at  all.  It  has  to  do  with  farming  machinery 
and  implements.  It  is  incredible  in  this  prov- 
ince we  did  not  have  a  reduction  or  elimina- 
tion in  the  sales  tax  on  farm  machinery  and 
equipment. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  inspired  suggestion 
came  from  the  member  for  Brantford.  He  is 
not  being  parochial.  He  understands  the 
needs  of  all  of  Ontario. 

In  another  area,  it  would  not  have  cost 
very  much  money  but  it  would  have  been  a 
very  nice  gesture  if  the  Treasurer  had  raised 
the  exemption  for  sales  tax  on  footwear.  It 
stands  at  $30  now.  It  should  be  raised  to  at 
least  $50,  when  one  considers  the  price  par- 
ticularly of  outer  footwear  for  the  winter. 
The  sales  tax  should  be  removed  on  that. 

In  conclusion,  we  welcome  the  tax  cuts 
for  their  short-term  value.  The  sales  taxes 
were  regressive  to  start  with  and  this  will 
provide  a  short-term  stimulus.  I  guess  the 
BILD  program  is  this  government's  admis- 
sion that  planning  may  be  necessary.  I  am 
amazed  that  the  Treasurer  is  the  one  who 
brought  in  this  statement  on  the  BILD  pro- 
gram. I  have  no  illusions  whatsoever  but  that 
it  is  a  delaying  tactic.  The  only  delaying 
tactic  he  knew  he  could  get  away  with  was 
something  that  addressed  itself  to  long-term 
structural  problems  in  Ontario;  so  he  called 
it  a  BILD  program. 

He  knows  he  will  have  to  take  no  specific 
action  at  all  until  after  next  spring,  when 
the  election  will  be  behind  us.  We  know 
that  and  we  understand  the  cynicism  of  that 
act.  It  is  also  an  indication  that  the  Treas- 
urer's faith  in  the  private  sector  is  somewhat 
diminished.  There  was  a  day  when  he  would 
not  have  touched  that.  As  I  said  earlier,  we 
regard  this  budget  as  one  that  does  not  do 
anyone  any  harm,  but  it  sure  does  not  help 


4280 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the    people    and    the   parts    of   the    economy 
that  need  it  the  most. 

TELEVISION  CAMERAS 

Mr.  Martel:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  This  is  the  second  occasion  on 
which  the  television  cameras  have  come  into 
this  Legislature.  In  fact,  they  allow  the 
government  side  with  all  its  pomp  to  present 
to  the  people  of  Ontario  the  government's 
position  on  the  economy.  The  second  that 
occurs  and  is  delivered,  they  then  shut  the 
cameras  down  when  the  critics  for  the 
Liberal  Party  and  my  party  are  responding, 
whether  it  be  in  the  appropriate  budget 
time  or  a  week  later,  and  those  responses 
are  not  delivered  to  the  people  of  Ontario. 

I"  is  time  this  House  said  to  the  media, 
"You  damned  well  do  it  for  all  three  or  you 
do  not  do  it  for  any."  I  am  getting  increas- 
ingly frustrated  at  the  television  people, 
whom  we  allow  in  here.  It  is  a  privilege  for 
them  to  be  in  this  Legislature,  as  a  result 
of  the  Morrow  report  in  1975  and  1976, 
which  you  helped  to  bring  about  as  Speaker 
in  this  Legislature.  But  the  bias  shown  by 
the  media  and  the  disrespect  they  show  to 
the  two  opposition  parties  are  unacceptable 
any  longer. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  ask  you,  in  conjunction  with 
the  House  leaders,  to  ensure  that  it  does  not 
occur  again.  If  they  are  not  prepared  to  tele- 
vise my  critic  and  the  Liberal  critic,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  Treasurer,  then  they  are  out  on 
this  occasion  as  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  will 
do  everything  I  know  to  obstruct  them,  be- 
cause this  will  not  go  on  again  as  long  as  I 
am  here.  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  make 
sure  there  is  some  fairness  to  all  political 
parties  in  the  presentation  of  the  budget  and 
the  responses;  otherwise  it  is  for  nought.  I 
ask  that  you  take  this  matter  into  considera- 
tion immediately. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  remind  the  honour- 
able member  that  the  guidelines  that  were 
laid  down  to  allow  the  electronic  media  in 
here  were  done  on  the  basis  of  the  Speaker's 
ad  hoc  committee  that  was  set  up  many 
years  ago  before  I  assumed  the  duties  I  now 
hold.  I  want  to  remind  the  member  that  I 
am  a  servant  of  the  House.  If  the  House 
wishes  to  take  the  kind  of  action  that  you 
think  appropriate,  it  is  up  to  the  House  to 
direct  the  Speaker  as  to  what  action  that 
should  be 

10:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  would  ask  the  government 
House  leader  to  respond.  I  think  it  is  in- 
cumbent upon  the  government  House  leader 


to  indicate  to  this  Legislature  that  he  is  in 
agreement  that,  if  we  are  going  to  have  the 
Treasurer  televised— and  I  have  no  objection 
to  it— it  is  incumbent  on  the  media  to  give 
the  same  opportunity  to  the  Liberal  Party  and 
the  New  Democratic  Party.  Otherwise,  there 
is  a  bias  that  is  unacceptable  as  far  as  I  am 
concerned.  I  hope  the  government  House 
leader  will  agree  that  we  have  to  expand 
the  coverage  of  what  goes  on  in  the  Legis- 
lature so  people  of  this  province  understand 
what  is  going  on. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
wisest  thing  to  do  would  be  for  you  to 
convene  at  your  convenience  a  meeting  of 
this  ad  hoc  committee  so  we  could)  talk 
about  this.  I  do  not  disagree  with  the  criti- 
cisms of  the  member,  but  I  do  not  think  we 
should  take  any  hasty  action  to  remove 
television  cameras  tonight.  Quite  frankly,  I 
was  surprised  when  I  saw  them  in  here  to- 
night. I  do  not  recall  being  made  aware 
that  the  cameras  were  going  to  be  in  here 
tonight  for  this  particular  statement. 

There  is  a  normal  procedure  for  cameras 
to  be  provided  during  question  period  and 
any  other  time.  The  special  cameras  are 
here.  I  do  not  know  under  what  agreements 
they  are  here.  Perhaps  we  should  have  a 
meeting  and  talk  about  that  again.  I  think 
we  did  talk  about  television  in  a  very  good 
way  and  set  some  good  ground  rules  for 
the  Confederation  debate.  Perhaps  we  should 
get  that  committee  together  again  and  take 
a  look  at  this  and  see  what  can  be  done. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  next  Thursday 
morning  the  members'  services  committee 
and  the  procedural  affairs  committee  are 
attempting  to  hold  a  joint  meeting.  Both 
committees  have  matters  relating  to  the 
television  coverage  of  proceedings  in  this 
House  on  their  agendas. 

It  is  my  understanding  that  there  had  been 
agreement  reached  previously  on  how  the 
cameras  would  enter  the  House  and  how  they 
would  function  and  precedents  were  set  about 
the  kind  of  coverage  that  would  go  on  during 
the  coverage  of  the  Confederation  debate.  I 
did  notice  this  evening  the  precedent  that 
was  set  in  terms  of  the  kind  of  shots  that 
would  be  taken,  the  precedent  that  was  so 
carefully  laid  down  during  the  Confedera- 
tion debate,   was  not  followed  this  evening. 

It  would  be  our  pleasure  for  those  two 
committees  to  serve  in  an  advisory  capacity 
to  the  House  and  perhaps  to  make  a  report 
to  the  House  if  that  would  be  the  wish. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  before  you 
respond,  perhaps  I  could  ask  you,  who  did 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4281 


give  permission  for  the  special  lights  and 
the  camera  positions  to  be  put  in? 

The  point  made  by  the  government  House 
leader  is  valid,  that  by  agreement  television 
can  come  in  any  time  they  want,  turn  the 
lights  on  any  time  they  want  and  take  pic- 
tures of  whatever  they  want,  but  this  stuff 
of  course  works  a  special  hardship  on  the 
members  who  are  here. 

Tf  they  are  going  to  go  to  all  this  elaborate 
trouble,  they  should  televise  all  participants. 
I  remember,  when  this  first  started,  that  was 
what  was  done.  The  idea  was  that  the 
budget  of  the  province  Would  be  televised 
and  the  full  hour-long  responses  of  both  op- 
position parties  would  be  televised.  No  mat- 
ter how  excellent  the  response— the  member 
for  York  South  (Mr.  MacDonald)  remembers 
just  how  excellent  they  were— I  can  say  that 
there  is  a  certain  feature  of  diminishing  re- 
turns associated  with  it,  because  the  only 
letters  I  got  about  my  response  were  giving 
me  hell  for  pre-empting  The  Edge  of  Night. 
There  are  intrinsic  problems  here  which  even 
the  committees  meeting  together  might  not 
be  able  to  solve. 

Mr.  Speaker:  To  answer  directly  the  ques- 
tion raised  by  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford- 
Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon),  I  was  not  asked 
directly  whether  permission  would  be  given 
for    the    extra    lighting    or   the    two    camera 


placements,  one  behind  the  government 
benches  and  one  behind  the  opposition 
benches.  I  was  notified  by  the  Sergeant  at 
Arms  earlier  today  that  they  were  being  in- 
stalled and  that  they  had  talked  to  the 
director  of  administration,  who  normally 
monitors  the  camera  positions  in  keeping 
with  the  guidelines  that  were  laid  down  by 
the  ad  hoc  committee  on  radio  and  tele- 
vision. 

I  appreciate  the  sentiments  expressed  by 
all  members  who  have  spoken.  I  was  aware 
that  there  was  to  be  a  joint  meeting  of  the 
standing  committees  on  procedural  affairs 
and  members'  services.  We  have  a  file  on 
that  in  the  Speaker's  office.  It  will  be  made 
available  to  the  chairmen  of  those  two  com- 
mittees so  it  may  assist  them  in  their  deliber- 
ations. 

Perhaps,  rather  than  convening  the  ad  hoc 
committee,  we  could  await  the  findings  or 
any  recommendations  that  might  come  for- 
ward from  the  joint  committee  that  the 
member  for  Oshawa  referred  to  earlier.  I 
make  the  commitment  to  co-operate  in  any 
way  possible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  had  a 
member  who  wished  a  late  show. 

Mr.  Speaker:  By  agreement  of  both  par- 
ties, that  was  deferred  until  next  Thursday. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:26  p.m. 


4282  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  November  13,  1980 

Supplementary  measures:   Mr.   F.   S.   Miller   4259 

Retail  Sales  Tax  Act,  Bill  187,  Mr.  Maeck,  first  reading 4267 

Supplementary  measures,  continued: 

Mr.   Peterson   4267 

Mr.    Laughren 4273 

Point  of  privilege  re  television  cameras:  Mr.  Martel,  Mr.  Breaugh,  Mr.  Wells,  Mr.  Nixon  4280 

Adjournment    4281 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davidson,  M.  (Cambridge  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Havrot,  E.  (Timiskaming  PC) 

Hennessy,  M.  (Fort  William  PC) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Sterling,  N.  W.  (Carleton-Grenville  PC) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 

Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 


No.  113 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Friday,  November  14,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears   at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can   be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  9th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4285 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Friday,  November  14,  1980 


The  House  met  at  10  a.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  morning 
I  shall  be  introducing  for  first  reading  An 
Act  to  amend  the  Employment  Standards 
Act. 

In  my  statement  on  plant  closures  and 
layoffs  on  October  14,  I  announced  the  gov- 
ernment's intention  to  amend  this  legislation 
to  provide  for  employer  participation  in  ad- 
justment committees  and  for  the  protection 
of  employees'  fringe  benefits.  While  joint 
labour-management  adjustment  committees 
in  most  cases  have  proven  successful  in  as- 
sisting displaced  employees  find  employment, 
some  employers  have  refused  to  participate 
in  them.  A  further  problem  is  the  fact  that 
employees  affected  by  plant  closures  can  lose 
fringe  benefits  if  an  employer  elects  to  close 
operations  without  giving  the  required  notice 
and  pays  wages  in  lieu  of  notice. 

The  bill  contains  three  substantive  ele- 
ments in  response  to  these  concerns.  First,  it 
empowers  the  minister  to  require  employers 
to  participate  in  and  contribute  to  the  fund- 
ing of  committees  to  facilitate  the  employ- 
ment of  employees  who  are  being  terminated. 
Second,  it  clarifies  that  employers'  contribu- 
tions to  benefit  plans  must  be  maintained 
during  the  notice  period. 

Third,  it  requires  that  employers  who  ter- 
minate employees  without  notice  must  con- 
tinue to  make  contributions  to  benefit  plans 
during  the  period  for  which  notice  should 
have  been  given.  It  also  provides  that  em- 
ployees are  deemed  to  have  worked  during 
the  period  for  which  notice  should  have 
been  given  to  ensure  they  will  be  entitled  to 
the  benefits. 

I  believe  these  amendments  provide  more 
equitable  treatment  and  effective  adjustment 
provisions  for  workers  affected  by  plant 
closures. 


ACID  RAIN 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Today,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  honourable  members  will  find  in  their 
post  boxes  copies  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment's  new  publication,  The  Case 
Against  Acid  Rain. 

This  is  a  report  on  acid  rain  which  clearly 
summarizes  and  describes  ( 1 )  the  nature 
and  magnitude  of  acidic  precipitation  in  North 
America,  (2)  the  extent  to  which  we  know 
Ontario  is  affected,  (3)  the  programs  we 
now  have  in  place  to  meet  the  challenge 
and  (4)  most  important,  the  commitment  to 
action  which  will  be  required  both  here  and 
in  the  United  States  to  curb  acidic  rain  pol- 
lution in  our  countries. 

This  new,  graphically  illustrated  booklet  is 
intended  to  meet  the  high  demand  for  in- 
formation about  acid  rain.  Mv  ministry  is 
distributing  this  report  widely  without 
charge  to  anglers',  hunters'  and  cottagers'  as- 
sociations, to  conservation  groups,  to  the 
business  and  manufacturing  sectors,  to 
scientists,  schools  and  universities  and  to 
news  media  throughout  Canada  and  in  many 
areas  of  the  United  States  as  well. 

HIGHWAY  TRAFFIC  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  three 
statements  I  would  like  to  make  this 
morning. 

First,  I  would  like  to  take  some  time  to 
outline  several  amendments  to  the  Highway 
Traffic  Act  and  the  regulations  I  will  be 
introducing  in  a  bill  later  this  morning. 
While  a  number  are  basically  housekeeping 
items,  three  are  rather  important,  and  I  would 
like  to  describe  them  in  more  detail.  Spe- 
cifically, they  cover  medical  standards,  regis- 
tration reciprocity  and  the  regulation  of 
safety  equipment  on  vehicles  carrying  physi- 
cally disabled  persons. 

Let  me  begin  with  the  amendments  that 
will  allow  a  degree  of  flexibility  in  applying 
medical  standards  to  classified  drivers' 
licences.  As  the  members  are  aware,  my  min- 
istry has  been  approached  by  a  number  of 
individuals  and  organizations  concerning  the 
existing  medical  standards  for  drivers  under 
the  classified  driver  licensing  system. 


4286 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


In  a  number  of  instances,  the  ministry  has 
been  criticized  because  it  is  felt  our  stand- 
ards cause  undue  hardship  to  certain  indi- 
viduals, or  deny  drivers  the  right  to  appeal 
when  a  licence  is  downgraded  for  medical 
reasons.  In  most  cases,  the  arguments  focus 
on  the  inflexibility  of  current  regulations 
which  prevent  any  consideration  for  profes- 
sional drivers  who  have  ceased  to  meet  the 
medical  standards,  forcing  them  to  look  for 
other  means  of  employment,  despite  good 
driving  records. 

Currently,  classified  driver  licensing  sys- 
tems are  used  in  eight  of  the  10  provinces. 
Like  theirs,  our  system  was  devised  with  the 
intent  to  maintain  a  high  level  of  driver 
skill  and  safety. 

Medical  standards  were  based  on  the 
guidelines  published  by  the  Canadian  Medi- 
cal Association,  and  were  part  and  parcel 
of  the  package.  With  minor  variations  in 
procedure,  all  provinces  adhere  closely  to 
these  medical  standards. 

When  classified  driver  licences  were  intro- 
duced in  1977,  a  grandfather  provision  was 
included  to  permit  many  individuals  who 
did  not  meet  the  medical  standards  to  con- 
tinue driving  provided  their  condition  did  not 
deteriorate  further.  That  was  regulation  906/ 
76,  section  12(2). 

The  medical  standards  were  not  meant 
to  cause  undue  hardship,  and1  I  believe  they 
have  been  applied  by  my  officials  in  a  fair 
and  equitable  manner.  But,  as  I  noted  a 
few  moments  ago,  my  ministry  has  been 
approached  by  various  individuals,  as  well 
as  interested  organizations,  primarily  on  the 
basis  of  economic  hardship. 

Honourable  members  will  appreciate  that 
the  standards  intended  to  ensure  the  safety 
of  our  highways  cannot  directly  take  into 
account  loss  of  livelihood  to  individual 
drivers.  However,  I  can  appreciate  the 
potential  need  for  some  greater  flexibility 
in  individual  cases  where  it  can  be  demon- 
strated the  medical  condition  is  stable  and 
does  not  constitute  a  hazard  to  the  public. 
10:10  a.m. 

I  would  agree  in  principle  that  there 
are  experienced  drivers  in  the  higher  licence 
classification— drivers  whose  licences  have 
been  downgraded  because  they  no  longer 
meet  all  the  medical  standards  who  should 
have  an  opportunity  to  make  representations 
to  the  registrar  of  motor  vehicles  and,  if 
necessary,  to  have  a  hearing  before  the 
Licence  Suspension  Appeal  Board. 

Nevertheless,  I  continue  to  have  reserva- 
tions about  any  system  that  would  allow 
the    waiving    of    existing    medical    standards 


for  drivers  directly  responsible  for  the  car- 
riage of  school  children  or  the  general 
public  in  large  or  small  buses. 

In  some  cases,  however,  the  needs  of 
these  drivers  may  be  met  by  continuing  to 
allow  them  to  drive  trucks  where  these 
vehicles  were  included  in  their  previous 
licences.  As  a  result,  I  intend  to  introduce 
amendments  that  will  provide  for  a  degree 
of  flexibility  to  the  medical  standards  for 
classified  drivers  without  affecting  existing 
standards. 

What  we  have  in  mind  includes  amend- 
ments that  will  allow  the  ministry  to  waive 
any  medical  standard  excepting  vision,  in 
licence  classes  A  and  D  for  drivers  who  (a) 
hold  or  have  held  a  valid  A,  B,  C  or  D 
driver's  licence,  (b)  first  submit  a  certificate 
from  a  medical  specialist  to  the  effect  that 
their  medical  condition  is  stable  and  com- 
patible with  professional  driving  duties  and 
(c)  satisfy  the  registrar  as  to  their  fitness 
with  regard  to  driving  experience,  medical 
risk,  personal  insight  and  responsibility  in 
adapting  to  their  medical  condition. 

The  Highway  Traffic  Act  will  also  be 
amended  to  allow  the  Licence  Suspension 
Appeal  Board  to  hear  appeals  arising  out  of 
medical  downgrading  decisions  by  the  regis- 
trar. May  I  note  that,  if  the  House  sees  fit 
to  pass  this  amendment  during  this  fall  ses- 
sion, I  anticipate  the  necessary  regulatory 
and  administrative  changes  can  be  made  in 
time  to  introduce  the  new  procedures  very 
early  in   1981. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Bring  in  the  bill  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:   I  will.  It  is  here. 

Mr.   Foulds:   Terrific. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Just  wait  a  minute;  I  have 
said  that.  Listen. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  these  changes  will 
give  my  ministry  the  flexibility  to  respond 
to  improvements  in  medical  diagnosis,  treat- 
ment and  technology  consistent  with  the 
basic  Canada-wide  medical  standards. 

I  would  like  to  mention  the  amendments 
necessary  for  us  to  administer  the  Canadian 
Agreement  of  Vehicle  Registration,  known  as 
CAVR,  an  agreement  signed  at  the  October 
2  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  re- 
sponsible for  Transportation  and  Highway 
Safety. 

As  you,  sir,  and  the  members  are  aware, 
Ontario  has  been  committed  to  this  reci- 
procity agreement  since  receiving  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  select  committee  of  the 
Ontario  Legislature  on  the  highway  trans- 
portation of  goods  in  1977.  Ontario  and  the 
other  provinces  have  been  working  on  this 
agreement  for  the  past  three  years.  Six  prov- 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4287 


inces,  including  Ontario,  have  now  com- 
mitted themselves  to  trying  to  meet  the 
target  implementation  date  of  April  1,  1981. 
Therefore,  I  am  now  introducing  the  neces- 
sary amendments  to  make  it  possible  to  ad- 
minister this  agreement  here  in  Ontario. 

By  way  of  partial  explanation,  the  CAVR 
will  make  it  possible  for  a  trucker  or  bus 
operator  to  travel  from  coast  to  coast  on 
one  licence  plate  and,  in  most  cases,  be 
assessed  fees  on  the  mileages  travelled  in 
member  provinces.  Mileage  prorated  vehicles 
will  require  a  registration  plate  from  only 
one  jurisdiction  and  can  travel  through  other 
jurisdictions  on  the  basis  of  a  "CAVR  cab 
card."  The  amendments  will  cover  the  imple- 
mentation and  regulation  of  the  CAVR  cab 
cards  and  provide  the  necessary  means  of 
ensuring  us  of  the  accuracy  of  the  mileage 
records.  They  are  essential  if  we  are  to  meet 
our  commitment  to  this  agreement. 

I  am  sure  this  reciprocity  agreement  will 
be  highly  effective  if  we  are  to  promote  the 
smooth  and  efficient  movement  of  people 
and   goods   across   provincial  boundaries. 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  mention  another 
amendment,  which  will  enable  us  to  pre- 
scribe the  use  of  safety  devices,  particularly 
on  vehicles  carrying  physically  disabled  pas- 
sengers, thus  enabling  us  to  enhance  the 
safest  possible  operation  of  these  vehicles. 

Applause. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  get  very  nervous  when 
I  get  applause  from  that  corner  of  the 
House. 

TRANSPORTATION  OF 
DANGEROUS  GOODS 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  you  may 
note,  the  federal  government  has  enacted 
legislation  to  cover  the  movement  and1 
handling  of  dangerous  goods  in  Canada.  En- 
titled the  Transportation  of  Dangerous  Goods 
Act,  it  applies  to  all  federally  regulated 
modes  of  transport,  including  railways,  air- 
lines, ships,  interprovincial  trucking,  manu- 
facturers of  dangerous  goods,  shippers,  con- 
signees, warehousemen  and  so  on. 

The  federal  legislation  is  not  intended, 
however,  to  provide  for  the  regulation  of 
intraprovincial  highway  transport,  a  well- 
established  area  of  provincial  jurisdiction 
falling  within  the  purview  of  my  ministry. 
I  am  therefore  pleased  to  announce  today 
the  introduction  of  a  bill  designed  to  pro- 
mote the  safe  transportation  of  dangerous 
goods  in  all  vehicles  using  all  provincial 
highways. 

In  drafting  the  Dangerous  Goods  Trans- 
portation Act  we  have  taken  great  pains  to 


ensure  it  is  consistent  with  federal  legisla- 
tion governing  the  transportation  of  dan- 
gerous goods  to  maintain  uniformity  right 
across  this  country.  Briefly  stated,  the  bill 
prohibits  the  transportation  of  dangerous  ma- 
terials on  provincial  highways  in  any  vehicle 
that  does  not  comply  with  the  prescribed 
safety  regulations  outlined  in  the  federal 
law,  including  the  regulations  regarding  the 
packaging  and  placarding  of  vehicles. 

Once  enacted,  this  provincial  legislation 
will  be  strictly  enforced  by  duly  authorized 
highway  carrier  inspectors  of  the  Ministry 
of  Transportation  and  Communications, 
doubtlessly  with  the  support  and  co-operation 
of  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police.  To  ensure 
compliance,  we  have  set  some  pretty  hefty 
fines  for  carriers  who  break  the  law.  Every 
person  who  contravenes  the  act  will  be  liable 
to  a  fine  of  up  to  $50,000  for  a  first  offence 
and  to  a  fine  of  up  to  $100,000  for  each 
subsequent  offence.  In  this  way  our  legis- 
lation will  provide  for  the  safe  and  efficient 
movement  of  dangerous  goods,  regardless 
of  origin,  on  all  provincial  highways  in  the 
interests  of  Ontario  residents. 

UTDC  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  members 
of  this  House  are  no  doubt  aware  of  the 
success  that  the  Urban  Transportation  De- 
velopment Corporation  has  recently  had  in 
developing,  at  its  new  test  track  and  research 
facility  near  Kingston,  one  of  the  most  ad^ 
vanced  intermediate  capacity  transit  systems 
in  North  America,  if  not  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  thought  Kraus-Maffei  was 
the  best  in  the  world. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  high- technology 
Ontario  industry. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  Pre- 
mier and  the  former  Leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition would  carry  on  their  conversation 
some  place  else,  I  could  iget  on  with  the 
statement. 

I  anticipate  that  UTDC  will  have  the  op- 
portunity within  the  next  year  to  bid  on  the 
construction  of  similar  ICT  systems  in  one 
or  more  of  the  major  centres  of  the  United 
States  and  Canada.  The  short  bill  I  will  be 
introducing  later  this  morning  is  intended  to 
deal  with  two  technical  difficulties  which 
must  be  addressed  prior  to  any  bidding.  The 
first,  in  section  2  of  this  bill,  makes  it  clear 
that  UTDC  is  not  an  agent  of  Her  Majesty 
at  common  law,  nor  a  crown  agency  within 
the  meaning  of  the  Crown  Agency  Act.  This 
intention    was    originally    expressed    by    the 


4288 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Legislature  in  similar  language  contained  in 
the  Ontario  Transportation  Development 
Corporation  Act.  It  was  not  carried  over 
when  the  business  and  affairs  of  that  corpo- 
ration were  assumed  by  UTDC,  a  company 
incorporated  under  the  Canada  Business 
Corporations  Act. 

The  second  provision  authorizes  the  prov- 
ince to  guarantee  the  performance  of  the 
Urban  Transportation  Development  Corpo- 
ration in  complying  with  the  terms  of  any 
contract  of  indemnity  given  by  UTDC  in 
obtaining  bonding  in  connection  with  a  bid, 
performance  contract  or  warranty  of  the  cor- 
poration. Without  this  assurance  by  the 
province,  the  corporation  would  be  unable 
to  obtain  bonding  and  therefore  would  not 
be  able  to  bid  on  any  major  transit  contracts. 

Given   the  very   significant  industrial  and 
economic  benefits  that  success  on  such  major 
bids   will   have   for   Ontario,    I   am   sure   all 
members  will  join  in  support  of  this  bill. 
10:20  a.m. 

TVONTARIO  ANNIVERSARY 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  later  this 
morning  I  will  join  with  you  and  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  at  a  ceremony  in  the 
St.  Lawrence  lounge  to  celebrate  the  tenth 
anniversary  of  the  Ontario  Educational 
Communications  Authority. 

I  am  sure  the  acting  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  will  be  the  first  one  over  there  today, 
knowing  his  traditional  enthusiastic  support 
for  that  great  organization. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  regret  to  say  that  was  my 
idea.  You  take  a  good  idea  and  wreck  it 
every  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  give  the  member 
credit  for  a  lot  of  things  which  these  days 
he  wants  to  ignore.  I  am  delighted  to  do 
that.  I  have  always  been  generous. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  was  even  the  father  of  the 
Ontario  Institute  for  Studies  in  Education. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Sure,  I  will  give  him 
credit  for  that  too.  I  will  give  him  credit 
for  that  and  the  Peterborough  manifesto. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Why  do  you  interrupt  your- 
self so  often? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  do  not  know.  I  learned 
that  from  the  member. 

Some  members  will  recall  that  while  I  was 
Minister  of  Education  I  introduced  a  bill 
that  took  educational  television  from  the 
Department  of  Education  and  placed  it  in 
an  arm's-length  position  within  an  autono- 
mous corporation,  which  was  supported  in- 
cidentally by  all  members  at  the  time. 


Within  its  purposely  broad  terms  of  refer- 
ence, TVOntario's  educational  programs  in 
English  and  French  extend  beyond  the  class- 
room into  the  home.  Working  within  the  cur- 
riculum guidelines  of  the  Ministry  of  Edu- 
cation, TVOntario  presents  programs  used  by 
most  of  our  schools.  The  success  of  programs 
for  preschoolers  is  well  known,  and  evening 
programs  now  draw  an  unduplicated  audience 
of  1.75  million  each  week. 

Because  it  is  a  mass  medium,  educational 
television  is  relatively  inexpensive.  Our  edu- 
cational television  service— the  entire  opera- 
tion of  TVOntario— consumes  about  one 
quarter  of  one  per  cent  of  Ontario's  public 
education  dollar.  I  am  able  to  say  that, 
through  its  sales  and  co-production  activities, 
TVOntario  increasingly  supplements  its  bud- 
get. This  year  it  expects  to  sell  about  $2  mil- 
lion worth  of  programs  in  Canada,  to  the 
United  States,  and  to  other  parts  of  the  world. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Why  don't  you  cover  north- 
ern Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Oh,  it  is  coming. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  It's  coming.  It's  a  second 
coming. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  delighted  to  know 
the  member  is  interested  in  having  it.  Some 
of  his  colleagues  are  interested  and  some  are 
not.  He  should  get  his  brother  off- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  It's  not  my  brother's  fault; 
it's  the  Premier's  fault. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  They  do  not  have  it  at  all 
in  Hawaii.  When  the  member  was  in  Hawaii, 
did  he  see  how  much  TV  they  had  for  edu- 
cational purposes?  None. 

TVOntario  has  a  greater  sales  volume  of 
television  programs  than  has  the  CBC.  TV- 
Ontario  sells  more  to  obtain  revenue  than  that 
great  public  network  owned  by  the  taxpayers 
of  Canada. 

There  were  some  concerns  when  educa- 
tional television  broadcasting  began  in  On- 
tario just  10  years  ago.  Now  we  are  moving 
into  a  new  era  of  educational  technology 
which  is  creating  new  concerns— a  technology 
that  incorporates  satellite  transmission,  tele- 
text systems,  mini-computers,  videodisc.  Ironi- 
cally, but  perhaps  not  surprisingly,  our  chil- 
dren often  feel  more  at  ease  with  these  de- 
velopments than  many  of  their  teachers  do. 
TVOntario,  through  its  own  experiments  and 
work  with  the  new  technologies,  as  well  as 
through  its  description  programs,  continues  to 
be  innovative  in  its  presentation  of  learning 
opportunities. 

Those  members  who  watch  TVOntario's 
programs  will  appreciate  the  breadth  of  in- 
terests that  are  covered:  programs  to  help  us 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4289 


understand  differences— different  ethnic  ori- 
gins, different  intelligences,  different  back- 
grounds and  families,  different  ages— programs 
that  have  to  do  with  the  arts  as  well  as  the 
sciences  and  technologies. 

A  synopsis  of  10  years  of  these  programs 
presented  in  10  minutes— to  expedite  the  ac- 
tivities of  members  of  the  House— will  be 
featured  at  the  event  in  the  St.  Lawrence 
lounge.  Some  of  TVOntario's  personalities  will 
be  pleased  to  welcome  them,  including  Ran 
Ide,  to  whom  I  wish  to  pay  tribute  for  his 
work  as  OECA's  first  chairman.  I  know  the 
member  for  Fort  William  will  be  delighted 
to  share  in  that,  knowing  full  well  where  Mr. 
Ide  gained  a  great  deal  of  his  experience.  I 
hope  on  this  occasion  we  may  all  feel  proud 
of  the  success  of  this  educational  enterprise. 

TORONTO  DISTRICT  HEATING 
CORPORATION  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
couple  of  statements  in  regard  to  bills  I 
will  be  introducing.  The  first  concerns  the 
Toronto   District   Heating  Corporation   Act. 

I  am  pleased  to  be  able  to  tell  the  House 
that  a  consensus  has  been  reached  by  all 
parties  involved  in  the  Toronto  steam  heat- 
ing system,  and  it  is  my  privilege  to  intro- 
duce today  the  Toronto  District  Heating 
Corporation  Act.  The  proposed  legislation 
enables  the  participants  to  make  contractual 
arrangements  which  will  allow  the  integra- 
tion of  the  heating  systems  of  Queen's  Park, 
the  University  of  Toronto,  the  Hospital 
Steam  Corporation  and  the  Toronto  Hydro- 
Electric    Commission's    steam    division. 

The  integration  of  these  four  existing 
steam  systems,  which  was  initiated  by  the 
city  of  Toronto,  will  have  the  following 
beneficial  results:  It  will  improve  air  quality 
by  significantly  reducing  the  operations  of 
the  Toronto  Hydro-Electric  System's  Pearl 
Street  plant,  which  has  an  environmental 
control  order  against  it  for  not  complying 
with  air  pollution  regulations  pursuant  to 
the   Environmental  Protection  Act. 

It  will  improve  the  security  of  supply  for 
customers,  including  hospitals  and  the  com- 
mercial users  because,  if  one  plant  breaks 
down,  the  others  can  pick  up  the  shortfall. 
It  will  allow  more  flexibility  in  using  cheaper 
or  more  available  fuel,  for  example,  coal, 
gas,  oil  or  garbage. 

It  will  create  a  sufficient  load  demand  to 
justify  the  economics  of  a  refuse-fired  steam 
plant.  The  plant  will  reduce  the  amount  of 
gas  and  fuel  oil  currently  being  consumed 
by  the  four  heating  plants  by  about  40  per 
cent.    The    burning    of    garbage    could    save 


418,000  barrels  of  oil  per  year— enough 
energy  to  heat  1,400  homes. 

The  refuse-fired  plant  could  dispose  of  25 
per  cent  of  Metropolitan  Toronto's  munici- 
pally collected  garbage;  490,000  metric  tons 
of  garbage  could  be  burned  at  the  Hearn 
plant,  for  instance,  or  380,000  metric  tons 
per  year  at  the  proposed  Cherry  Street  plant. 
The  Hearn  plant  could  also  generate  elec- 
tricity as  well  as  heat  in  a  process  called 
cogeneration. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  You  discovered  that  too.  It 
is  done  everywhere  else  on  the  face  of  the 
earth. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  are  doing  it.  This 
legislation  is  a  credit  to  all  those  who  have 
participated  in  the  consultation  process  over 
the  years.  To  give  members  some  idea  of  the 
breadth  and  comprehensiveness  of  this  con- 
sultation, let  me  briefly  list  the  players  who 
have  been  a  party  to  this  bill:  Four  hospital 
boards  of  governors,  the  Canadian  Union  of 
Operating  Engineers,  the  University  of  To- 
ronto, the  Toronto  Hydro-Electric  Commis- 
sioners representing  36  downtown  customers, 
the  International  Union  of  Operating  En- 
gineers, the  Canadian  Union  of  Public  Em- 
ployees, the  Ontario  government  ministries 
of  Government  Services,  Revenue,  Treasury, 
Health,  Energy,  Environment,  Attorney  Gen- 
eral and  Intergovernmental  Affairs,  the  city 
of  Toronto,  Metropolitan  Toronto  and  Con- 
sumers' Gas  Company. 

Consultations  with  the  unions  have  re- 
sulted in  revisions  to  this  legislation  which 
will  allow  for  the  continuation  of  three  sep- 
arate collective  agreements.  This  will  ensure 
that  no  employee  is  in  a  worse  position  be- 
cause of  the  integration  of  the  steam  sys- 
tems. Let  me  emphasize  that  many  have  set 
aside  their  own  program  and  policy  interests 
so  that  the  greater  provincial  good,  which 
shall  be  afforded  by  integration,  might  be 
achieved.  I  thank  all  the  parties  for  their 
great  sacrifices  of  time  and  effort,  which  are 
today  making  the  introduction  of  this  legis- 
lation possible. 

MUNICIPAL   LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  also 
be  introducing  today  amendments  to  the 
Municipal   Act. 

This  bill,  which  will  amend  the  Municipal 
Act,  will  do  so  by  adding  a  number  of  new 
powers,  by  removing  many  archaic  bylaw 
provisions,  by  substituting  a  few  general 
provisions  for  many  very  specific  ones,  by 
removing  status  distinctions  in  passing  by- 
laws and  by  relocating  a  number  of  sections. 


4290 


LEGISLATURE,  OF  ONTARIO 


Among  the  new  provisions  is  a  change  to 
the  provisions  for  filling  vacancies  on  local 
councils.  When  a  vacancy  occurs  after 
March  31  in  an  election  year  and  at  least 
45  days  before  nomination  day,  a  council 
will  be  required  to  fill  the  vacancy  by  ap- 
pointment within  45  days. 

An  example  of  a  power  which  the  bill 
would  remove  on  the  grounds  that  it  is 
archaic  is  that  which  allows  a  mayor  to 
commit  habitual  drunkards  to  an  institution 
for  their  reclamation  and  cure  with  or  with- 
out hard  labour. 

10:30  a.m. 

The  main  new  general  power  proposed 
in  the  bill  is  an  expansion  of  the  existing 
grants  provisions  to  allow  municipalities  to 
provide  grants  in  aid  for  any  purpose  con- 
sidered by  the  council  to  be  in  the  interests 
of  the  municipality.  This  would  replace  many 
specific  grants-in-aid  provisions  now  in  the 
act. 

A  number  of  changes  in  the  bill  will 
allow  all  local  municipalities  to  have  the 
powers  that  now  are  available  to  municipal- 
ities of  particular  status  or  population.  An 
example  of  this  type  of  change  is  to  allow 
all  local  municipalities  to  establish  taxi 
stands.  At  present  townships  do  not  have  this 
power. 

The  bill  also  proposes  to  relocate  a 
number  of  provisions  to  place  them  with  or 
near  to  similar  provisions  in  the  present  act. 

ACCESS  TO  LEGISLATIVE  BUILDING 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yesterday  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  (Mr.  M.  N.  Davison)  rose 
on  >a  point  of  privilege  with  respect  to  an 
incident  which  took  place  when  he  was 
questioned  by  a  member  of  the  Ontario 
Government  Protective  Service  as  he  entered 
the  Legislative  Building. 

For  the  information  of  all  members,  sec- 
tion 93(2)  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  Act 
provides  that  the  Speaker  shall  establish 
guidelines  for  the  security  of  the  legislative 
chamber  and  other  parts  of  the  Legislative 
Building  that  are  under  his  control. 

These  guidelines,  which  were  established 
in  December  1975  by  my  predecessor  and 
have  been  reviewed  from  time  to  time  by 
the  Board  of  Internal  Economy,  authorize 
the  protective  service  to  request  identifica- 
tion from  any  individual  seeking  access  to 
the  building  and  to  examine  any  parcels, 
briefcases,  et  cetera.  For  the  information  of 
the  House,  I  am  advised  that  it  has  been 
necessary  in   recent  months   for  the   protec- 


tive service  to  recruit  a  number  of  new 
personnel  to  replace  those  who  have  left  to 
seek  employment  elsewhere. 

Under  these  circumstances,  I  think  it  is 
understandable  that  a  recently  appointed 
officer  might  not  yet  recognize  every  mem- 
ber. I  have,  however,  written  to  the  super- 
intendent of  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police 
in  the  security  branch,  who  administers  the 
protective  service.  I  have  requested  that  he 
ensure  that,  in  addition  to  being  vigilant, 
members  of  the  protective  service  should 
exercise  wise  judgement  in  pursuing  their 
duties  and  refrain  from  making  personal 
comments  which  can  only  serve  to  further 
complicate  delicate  relationships. 

I  would  also  request  that  all  honourable 
members  appreciate  some  of  the  real  diffi- 
culties which  confront  members  of  the 
Ontario  Government  Protective  Service  in 
carrying  out  their  duties  and  assist  wherever 
possible  to  make  their  jobs  a  little  bit  easier. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

RURAL  ELECTRICAL  RATES 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Treasurer  relating  to  the  part  of  his 
statement  last  night  that  was  supposed  to 
fulfil  the  commitment  made  by  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  to  equalize  rural  and  urban 
hydro  rates. 

Will  the  Treasurer  explain  why  it  was  not 
the  policy  of  the  government  to  stop  the 
11.2  per  cent  increase  that  is  going  to  be 
imposed  on  the  rural  hydro  ratepayers  as  of 
January  1,  particularly  since  that  11.2  per 
cent  will  raise  the  rural  rates  by  something 
more  than  $57  million?  Will  he  compare  that 
increase,  which  is  to  take  place  in  January, 
with  the  $20  million  he  is  indicating  will 
begin  to  be  paid  after  April  1981,  and  agree 
with  me  that  he  is  not  moving  towards 
changing  the  inequities,  but  is  allowing  them 
to  continue? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
setting  of  the  rates  in  Ontario  Hydro  has 
always  been  on  the  basis  of  Hydro's  recover- 
ing its  costs,  as  I  understand.  We  are  not 
interfering  with  that  basic  procedure,  but  We 
did  say  that  by  1982  they  should  resolve  this 
complex  problem.  It  is  complex.  The  $20 
million  we  have  allocated  to  reduce  the 
differential  is  for  an  immediate  start  on  that 
process  while  the  rate  structures  are  worked 
out  by  Hydro  and  the  Ministry  of  Energy.  I 
think  the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  Welch), 
when  he  returns,  would  'be  best  able  to 
explain  the  current  rate  figures. 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4291 


Mr.  Nixon:  Since  we  as  farmers  in  Ontario 
now  pay  the  highest  rates  in  Canada  west 
of  New  Brunswick,  where  they  make  their 
electricity  out  of  oil,  and  we  see  other  juris- 
dictions where  equality  has  been  achieved  and 
in  this  jurisdiction  the  friend  and  former 
campaign  manager  of  the  Premier  is  running 
the  corporation,  why  cannot  the  three  of  them 
get  together  and  solve  this  problem  without 
making  it  simply  a  political  football,  as  they 
intend  to  do? 

The  minister  announced  it  seven  months 
ago  and  he  announced  it  again  last  night. 
We  are  not  going  to  get  any  money  until 
April,  and  he  will  announce  it  again  in  the 
budget  in  the  spring  if  we  have  one.  Why 
can  he  not  accomplish  equity  in  this  instance 
simply  by  passing  a  law  that  is  going  to  re- 
quire Ontario  Hydro  to  do  this  for  the 
benefit  of  the  farmers  in  this  province? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  There  are  many  ways 
in  which  we  try  to  help  the  farmers  of  this 
province  apart  from  this  specific  one.  I  hope 
the  honourable  member  will  agree  with  that. 
We  have  instructed  Hydro  to  have  that  in- 
equitable rate  differential  solved  by  1982. 

If  one  starts  looking  at  the  various  rates 
charged  in  rural  sections  of  the  province, 
they  vary  considerably.  Therefore,  we  have 
to  look  at  the  problem  in  some  detail,  and 
that  is  being  tackled. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  will  put  my  question  to  the 
Treasurer,  but  I  hope  the  Premier  will  listen. 
When  he  made  the  request  last  April  or  May 
that  we  should  move  to  investigate  this  thing, 
the  differential  amounted  to  $32  million. 
That  is  the  old  differential.  Hydro's  proposed 
reform  of  its  rate  structure,  on  which  I  put 
questions  to  the  Premier  and  the  Minister  of 
Energy  a  week  or  so  ago,  proposes  to  add 
another  $24  million  to  that  differential. 

How  does  the  Treasurer  think  that  $20 
million  is  going  to  cope  with  an  old  differen- 
tial of  $32  million  and  Hydro's  proposed  ad- 
ditional differential  of  $24  million  added  to 
the  rural  costs? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  still 
argue  that  $20  million  credited  directly  to 
the  rural  residential  users  will  be  a  very 
useful  assistance  program  while  the  details 
are  worked  out. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  the  credit 
the  minister  is  talking  about,  if  it  is  divided 
among  the  770,000  rural  customers,  will 
amount  to  about  $25  a  family  for  the  year, 
it  is  certainly  something  that  is  welcome  as 
far  as  a  Christmas  gift  is  concerned,  except 


that  people  will  have  to  wait  to  get  it  in  the 
year  following  April  1981,  how  can  the  gov- 
ernment establish  a  policy  by  edict  of  the 
Premier  and  permit  an  11.2  per  cent  increase 
to  come  on  January  1  which  is  going  to 
further  exacerbate  the  inequity? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon- 
ourable member  knows  that  the  hydroelectric 
power  content  in  Ontario  is  about  30  per  cent 
of  the  total  amount  we  make  and  the  bal- 
ance is  made  from  fuel  plants.  The  costs  of 
these  fuels  are  changing  very  dramatically  be- 
cause of  forces  beyond  our  control. 

Hydro  has  continued  to  maintain  a  policy 
of  breaking  even.  Therefore,  there  have  been 
requirements  to  adjust  rates  on  an  annual 
basis. 

Mr.  McKessock:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Ontario 
Hydro  feels  the  extra  cost  charged  to  rural 
customers  is  for  distribution  costs,  does  the 
minister  not  feel  that  if  these  high  power 
lines  that  go  from  the  Bruce  plant  down  to 
the  cities  were  charged  as  distribution  costs 
for  urban  dwellers  instead  of  as  capital  costs, 
there  would  be  no  difference  in  the  distri- 
bution costs  between  urban  and  rural  resi- 
dents? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  very 
much  like  trying  to  apportion  the  cost  of 
snowploughing  a  road.  The  honourable  mem- 
ber and  I  live  in  a  part  of  the  province  where 
there  are  often  two  or  three  homes  per  mile 
of  road.  Therefore,  the  cost  of  ploughing  the 
road  is  high.  In  Toronto  and  most  urban 
municipalities  there  are  many  users  per  mile 
of  line,  and  the  costs  for  maintenance  of 
those  lines  are  very  high.  As  we  have  ab- 
sorbed the  more  developed  parts  of  some 
communities  into  the  urban  structure,  it  has 
left  even  more  load  on  the  rural  structures. 
We  have  said  the  time  has  come  to  equalize 
that  and  we  are  doing  it. 
10:40  a.m. 

ENERGY  TAX  REBATES 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
put  another  question  to  the  Treasurer  on 
another  section  of  his  statement  last  night 
on  page  20,  under  the  heading  "Relief  for 
Home  Heating  Costs."  Actually,  what  drew  it 
to  my  attention  was  his  gratuitous  comment 
about  another  government  which  "is  insensi- 
tive to  the  impact  of  rising  energy  prices  on 
people  with  fixed  and  low  incomes."  The 
question  has  to  do  with  the  sensitivity  of  the 
minister  to  those  people  with  fixed  and  low 
incomes. 


4292 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Why  is  his  announced  program  to  assist  in 
heating  costs  going  to  begin  its  payout  in 
the  spring  of  1982?  What  is  the  point  of  an- 
nouncing that  in  a  special  budget  last  night 
when  it  is  going  to  be  of  no  significance  to 
the  people  he  is  referring  to,  those  with  fixed 
and  low  incomes,  until  the  spring  of  1982, 
even  though  energy  costs  have  already  gone 
up  well  beyond  the  ability  of  these  people  on 
low  and  fixed  incomes  to  pay? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  sense  that 
the  member's  many  years  in  this  House  are 
making  him  cynical.  I  just  have  that  feeling. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Does  the  Treasurer 
have  a  response? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  You  notice  I  have  been 
standing  by  very  quietly,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  you  to  say  something. 
I  don't  want  you  just  to  stand  there. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  They  do,  too,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

The  issue  is  twofold.  First,  we  feel  that 
federal,  provincial  and  national  co-operation 
is  needed  for  a  program  that  is  affordable  and 
fairly  apportioned  to  governments.  Do  not 
forget,  a  great  chunk  of  the  increase  in  the 
costs  of  home  heating  oil,  the  great  part  of 
it,  will  now  be  going  to  governments.  They 
should  use  that,  first  and  foremost,  to  cushion 
the  shock  of  the  price  increases  which  be- 
come greater  and  greater  for  the  home  owner 
in  the  next  three  years,  as  my  friend  Mr. 
Crosbie  did  last  year.  I  recommended  him  for 
it  at  the  time. 

First  of  all,  we  will  be  talking  to  Mr. 
MacEachen  and  our  fellow  finance  ministers, 
hoping  to  gain  their  support  for  a  national 
program.  Second,  it  needs  to  be  income  tested 
and,  therefore,  is  best  put  on  the  income 
tax  form.  The  earliest  possible  time  to  have 
that  done  is  for  the  spring  of  1982. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Returning  again  to  the  min- 
ister's concern  for  people  on  fixed  and  low 
incomes,  why  is  it  he  could  not  bring  him- 
self to  adjust  the  inequity  he  introduced  in 
his  previous  budget,  giving  the  grant  to  the 
95,000  senior  citizen  pensioners  who  had 
their  tax  grant  assistance  removed  from 
them  to  the  extent  of  $110  each?  How  can 
he  criticize  one  government  for  insensitivity 
to  the  old  and  people  on  fixed  incomes 
when,  with  the  other  hand,  he  has  taken 
$110  away  from  each  one  of  95,000  pen- 
sioners? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Again,  my  honourable 
friend  is  not  totally  accurate  with  his  figures. 
He   conveniently  forgets  we  increased  Gains 


for  a  number  of  these  95,000.  That  was 
$120  a  year.  The  fact  is  we  targeted  our 
program  for  need.  Those  who  had  income 
needs  got  it;  those  who  had  tax  needs  got 
it.  It  was  much  more  precise  than  our 
previous  program,  something  I  believe  the 
member  has  even  criticized  me  for  in  the 
past.  "Make  it  more  specific,"  he  said.  I 
did. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Can  the  minister  tell  the  House  whether 
he  has  a  group  of  people  working  in  his 
ministry  devising  promises  that  can  be  put 
into  future  budget  statements  with  refer- 
ence to  years  in  the  distant  future? 

Can  he  explain  why  people  on  low  in- 
comes are  promised  jam  yesterday,  jam  to- 
morrow but  never  jam  today,  or  more  spe- 
cifically, why  this  energy  tax  rebate  promised 
by  the  minister  is  a  vague,  shadowy  kind  of 
promise  not  to  take  place  until  1982,  if  the 
government  is  still  around,  but  to  provide 
no  relief  right  now?  Will  the  minister  ex- 
plain why  the  entire  budget  has  that  same 
shadow)  kind  of  consistency  where  promises 
are  made  as  far  as  five  years  in  the  future, 
but  delivery  right  now  in  terms  of  jobs  or 
relief  for  people  on  low  incomes  is  in- 
adequate? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  disagree 
that  it  is  shadowy.  I  think  we  were  very 
specific.  I  find  the  honourable  member's 
ability  to  criticize  me  when  I  project  five 
years  into  the  future  quite  inconsistent,  be- 
cause he  has  been  criticizing  me  for  not 
projecting  five  years  into  the  future.  We  are 
now  doing  it;  we  are  giving  the  honourable 
members  some  figures;  we  are  co-ordinating 
our  economic  thrusts;  we  are  putting  them 
into  a  committee  chaired  by  the  Treasurer, 
bringing  together  many  of  the  programs  of 
economic  development  in  the  province  total- 
ling about  $2  billion  a  year.  We  are  going  to 
be  reviewing  our  tax  expenditures;  we  are 
going  to  make  a  better  use  of  our  dollars. 
Then  the  honourable  member  tells  me  I  am 
not  doing  the  right  thing. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  Treasurer  has  chosen  to  turn  most  of 
the  carriages  into  pumpkins  on  July  1  of 
next  year  and  he  extends  the  home  heating 
program  to  people  on  fixed  and  low  incomes 
for  three  years  and  proposes  to  terminate  it 
after  three  years.  Is  the  minister  not  aware 
that  the  projected  increases  in  the  cost  of 
heating  oil  will  continue  beyond  the  three- 
year  period?  What  happens  at  the  end  of 
three    years    when    this    program   of    largess, 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4293 


designed  for  whatever  it  is  supposed  to  be 
designed  for,  comes  to  an  end? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  of 
the  things  iwe  point  out  is  that  we  are  trying 
to  cushion  the  shock  to  allow  people  to 
have  time  to  adjust.  I  have  great  confidence 
in  the  managerial  ability  of  the  average 
Canadian  family,  given  time  to  adjust  to 
new  conditions.  When  you  suddenly  dump 
a  new  cost  on  a  family  already  spending  all 
its  income,  you  have  left  no  place  for  it  to 
get  money  except  by  getting  into  debt.  We 
therefore  suggest  they  need  an  adjustment 
period  and  during  that  adjustment  period, 
I  would  suggest,  they  will  reorder  their 
priorities  in  many  cases  so  that  at  the  end 
of  that  period  of  time  they  will  have  an 
adjusted  family  budget. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Why  did  the  Treasurer  take  the  ap- 
proach of  reducing  the  sales  tax  on  specific 
sectors?  While  it  does  put  more  money  into 
the  economy  in  terms  of  people's  discretion- 
ary income,  at  the  same  time,  if  someone  is 
going  to  save  $35  on  the  purchase  of  a  $500 
refrigerator,  for  example,  they  obviously 
must  have  that  $500  to  start  with  to  make 
the  original  purchase.  Why  did  the  Treasurer 
not  take  an  approach  that  would  put  some 
money  directly  into  the  hands  of  low-income 
families  in  this  province,  for  example,  by  a 
reduction  in  OHIP  premiums  or  an  increase 
in  the  Gains  allowance? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  hon- 
ourable colleague  would  have  to  admit  that 
low-income  people  do  not  pay  OHIP  pre- 
miums under  our  system.  The  most  effective 
mechanism  for  short-term  stimulus  has  been 
proven  to  be  the  sales  tax  route  where  the 
savings  elements  are  high. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
On  the  matter  of  relief  of  home  heating 
costs,  the  Treasurer  says  in  his  statement, 
"I  will  be  making  specific  proposals  to  the 
Minister  of  Finance."  What  are  those  spe- 
cific proposals? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  said 
in  my  comment,  I  will  be  making  them  to 
the  Minister  of  Finance. 

10:50  a.m. 

STRATFORD  FESTIVAL 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Premier.  The  bungling  of 
the  Stratford  Festival  board  of  directors  has 
precipitated  not  only  an  artistic  crisis  in  the 
festival  but  also  an  economic  crisis.  It  is 
going  to  cost  about  $30  million  in  revenues 


and  500  or  600  jobs  in  the  Stratford  area  this 
summer  if  the  boycott  of  Equity  which  has 
been  precipitated  by  the  board  is  carried 
through.  In  view  of  this,  would  the  Premier 
say  what  steps  the  government  now  intends 
to  take  in  order  to  seek  to  resolve  this  crisis 
which  is  both  artistic  and  economic? 

Mr.  Peterson:  Would  the  Premier  consider 
Frank  as  our  artistic  director  of  the  Stratford 
Festival? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  am  a  choreographer 
by  nature. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  but  I  think  it  might 
be  a  great  spot  for  the  member.  That  would 
save  him  having  to  make  a  decision. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be  delighted  to  an- 
swer that  question  but  I  think  the  minister 
responsible  for  art,  culture,  recreation  and 
many  things  in  this  province  might  more  ap- 
propriately answer  it  for  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party.  The  minister  is  in  his 
seat.  I  am  sure  he  would  be  delighted  to 
answer  that  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe 
that  question  is  entirely  premature.  Negotia- 
tions are  just  starting  today,  not  only  with 
the  Ontario  Arts  Council  and  with  Stratford 
but  also  with  the  Canadian  Actors'  Equity 
Association  and  so  forth.  So  for  us  now  to 
draw  conclusions  implicitly  to  questions  like 
that  I  think  is  entirely  too  premature.  But 
as  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  has  indi- 
cated, this  is  a  question  that  has  not  only 
artistic  but  also  economic  implications.  We 
will  keep  an  eye  on  it  and  keep  reporting 
to  this  House.  It  is  too  premature  to  try  to 
answer  to  anything  today. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Could  the  minister  not  have 
a  greater  sense  of  urgency  about  what  is 
happening  there  and  what  that  means,  not 
just  for  the  economy  of  an  important  region 
in  southwestern  Ontario,  but  for  the  whole 
province?  The  Stratford  Festival  has  been  a 
premier  tourist  attraction  for  people  from 
the  United  States  and  as  far  away  as  Europe 
and  Japan. 

Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  the  boycott 
by  Equity,  precipitated  by  the  Stratford  Fes- 
tival board,  is  in  force  immediately?  That 
means  the  actors  and  other  theatre  people 
affected  are  immediately  going  to  be  looking 
for  other  engagements  and1  making  other 
commitments  which  will  keep  them  out  of 
Stratford  if  a  resolution  is  arrived  at  in  a 
month  or  two. 

Is  the  minister  also  aware  that  the  Canada 
Council  is  now  not  in  a  position  to  consider 
Stratford's    application    for    funding   for    the 


4294 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


1981  year  because  the  signatures  on  the  sub- 
mission that  was  made  last  month  by  the 
four  artistic  directors  can  no  longer  be  con- 
sidered to  be  valid  because  those  artistic 
directors  are  no  longer  with  Stratford?  Their 
position  is  in  doubt  because  of  the  hiring  of 
Mr.  Dexter  and  because  of  the  fact  that 
severance  terms  are  being  offered  to  those 
four  artistic  directors. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  has  been  asked. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Could  the  minister  not  take 
this  as  a  matter  of  greater  urgency?  What  is 
he  going  to  do  before  the  entire  Stratford 
Festival,  which  has  been  an  important  part 
of  our  lives  for  28  years,  descends  into  a 
shambles? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  As  I  indicated  earlier, 
these  questions  are,  at  this  moment,  still 
premature.  The  Ontario  Arts  Council,  which 
is  our  agency  working  with  Stratford  in  this, 
is  very  concerned  about  the  situation.  They 
issued  a  statement  today  and,  Mr.  Speaker, 
with  your  permission  I  will  read  one  para- 
graph: 

"The  Ontario  Arts  Council  initiated  in- 
quiries on  Tuesday,  November  11,  the 
minute  they  knew  about  it,  within  hours  of 
the  announcement  of  the  dismissal  of  the 
Canadian  director,  and  the  appointment  of 
Mr.  John  Dexter.  After  numerous  informal 
contacts  and  discussions,  the  Ontario  Arts 
Council  requested  that  representatives  of  the 
Stratford  Festival  board  meet  with  the  execu- 
tive committee  of  the  Ontario  Arts  Council 
on  Wednesday,  November  19,  at  which  time 
it  is  expected  that  answers  to  a  number  of 
pressing   questions   will  be   forthcoming. 

"In  addition,  the  Ontario  Arts  Council 
was  in  communication  with  Equity  in  light 
of  their  recent  announcement  of  a  boycott  at 
Stratford  by  the  Canadian  actors." 

So  I  feel  the  Ontario  Arts  Council,  the 
Canada  Council,  my  counterpart  in  Ottawa 
and  my  ministry  are  all  aware  this  is  a  serious 
situation.  But  We  must  simply  take  this  step 
by  step.  It  is  urgent  and  we  are  going  to 
treat  it  as  such. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  issue  which  has  precipi- 
tated the  crisis  at  Stratford  is  the  decision  of 
the  board  to  once  again  pass  over  Canadian 
talent  in  the  artistic  direction  of  the  festival. 
The  Stratford  Festival  board  has,  for  almost 
all  of  its  20  years,  hired  foreigners  as  the 
artistic  directors  of  the  festival.  In  view  of 
this,  will  the  government  insist  at  least  this 
time  that  artistic  direction  be  in  the  hands 
of  Canadians,  since  that  is  also  a  means  by 
which  this  dispute,  this  crisis,  can  be  resolved 
very  quickly? 


Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  again  I 
must  say  it  would  be  premature  for  me  to 
stand  here  in  this  place  at  this  hour  and  say 
we  are  going  to  insist  on  specific  situations 
such  as  this.  Let  us  give  both  the  Canada 
Council  and  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  and 
Stratford  and  the  Equity  people  some  time 
to  negotiate  and  then  we  will  see  where  we 
need  to  go  from  there.  We  will1  do  what  needs 
to  be  done  when  the  time  comes  to  do  it. 

AUTO  INDUSTRY  LAYOFFS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  I  would  like  to  direct  to  the  Premier 
about  the  layoffs  in  the  auto  industry  that 
are  recurring  now  in  Windsor. 

This  week  6,000  workers  at  Chrysler  are 
told  they  are  going  on  layoff  next  week  be- 
cause the  production  of  those  gas  guzzlers  they 
make  down  there  is  exceeding  the  demand 
for  them.  There  are  also  indications  that 
Chrysler  intends  to  expand  its  K  car  produc- 
tion in  the  United  States  at  its  St.  Louis 
plant  and  to  transfer  production  of  the  larger 
cars  that  are  now  made  in  St.  Louis  to 
Windsor,  instead  of  expanding  K  car  produc- 
tion in  Canada. 

Since  the  Premier  said  in  June  he  was 
optimistic  the  Big  Four  auto  makers  would 
give  Canada  a  fair  share  of  production  of  the 
new  fuel-efficient  cars,  can  the  Premier  say 
what  he  now  intends  to  do  in  order  to  ensure 
that  Chrysler  builds  K  cars  in  Canada  rather 
than  building  cars  for  which  there  is  obvi- 
ously a  very  declining  market? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  of  course 
there  is  a  concern  here  with  respect  to 
Chrysler  and  the  other  auto  companies  in 
terms  of  the  market  conditions  this  year. 
From  my  perspective  I  think  it  is  rather 
premature  to  be  determining,  in  fact,  what 
the  market  conditions  are  going  to  he- 
Mr.    Cassidy:    Everything    is   premature. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Listen,  I  know  exactly 
what  is  happening  in  Windsor.  I  think  it  is 
fair  to  state  that  the  government,  through  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  communi- 
cated last  June,  and  has  since,  the  desire  on 
the  part  of  this  government— and  I  would 
hope  the  government  of  Canada— to  have  a 
growing  percentage  of  the  more  fuel-efficient 
vehicles  in  this  country. 

For  instance,  my  recollection  is  that  GM 
has  made  a  commitment  that  some  of  that 
production  will,  in  fact,  take  place  in 
Oshawa.  The  member  for  Oshawa  (Mr. 
Breaugh)  is  nodding  his  head,  and  it  is 
great  to  have  him  in  agreement  on  a  Friday 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4295 


morning.  The  situation  with  Chrysler  is  not 
as  final  or  committed  as  it  is  with  GM.  We 
intend,  I  hope  along  with  the  government  of 
Canada,  to  be  pursuing  it  with  them. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  Premier  said  in 
June  he  was  optimistic  that  we  would  get  a 
fair  share  of  these  cars,  is  the  Premier  aware 
that  the  other  problem  with  Chrysler  Canada 
is  the  fact  the  company  has  an  inadequate 
sourcing  of  parts  and  production  of  parts 
here  in  Canada?  I  have  here  the  invoices  that 
document  the  systematic  stripping  of  the 
Chrysler  engine  plant  which  was  closed  in 
August  and  where  the  equipment  and  ma- 
chinery is  now  being  shipped  out  to  the 
United  States  and  to  the  Chrysler  subsidiary 
in  Mexico. 

Since  this  disposal  of  the  equipment  in  a 
plant  which  we  were  told  was  going  to  be 
mothballed  endangered  the  perspective  use  of 
the  plant  for  either  a  V6  engine  or  for  a 
diesel  facility  such  as  the  one  Massey-Fergu- 
son  has  been  discussing  with  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Tourism,  will  the  government 
step  in  and  make  Chrysler  stop  stripping  the 
assets  from  that  engine  plant  in  Windsor 
until  a  future  use  can  be  found  for  the  plant 
here  in  Canada  that  would  create  jobs  for 
Canadians? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  the  term  "strip- 
ping the  assets"  is  not  totally  accurate.  It  is 
my  understanding,  and  it  is  only  an  under- 
standing, that  certain  equipment  was  being 
moved  out  of  that  particular  plant,  and  this 
was  known  to  the  members. 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  not  news.  Some 
of  the  NDP  members  asked  us  about  that 
last  June.  That  is  not  new  information.  We 
knew  this  was  in  the  process  of  taking  place. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker 
—and  I  want  to  assure  the  Premier  that  I 
drive  a  Chrysler,  not  a  Peugeot— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  I  don't 
know  who  drives  a  Peugeot.  I  drive  a 
Chrysler. 

Mr.  Mancini:  We  wish  to  welcome  the 
leader  of  the  third  party  to  the  Chrysler 
drivers. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  the  model  is  called  the 
Premier. 

11  a.m. 

Mr.  Mancini:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Premier  if  he  is  going  to  involve  himself  with 
the  federal  Minister  of  Industry,  Trade  and 
Commerce  in  the  renegotiation  of  some  parts 
of  the  auto  pact  to  ensure  that  Windsor  gets 


a  fair  share  of  automobile  production  in 
many  sectors  of  the  industry  and  not  only  in 
the  large  car  sector. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  govern- 
ment will  ibe  involved,  and  has  been.  I  think 
that  will  be  very  evident  to  the  honourable 
member  when  he  sees  what  has  been  ac- 
complished. Certainly  there  are  discussions 
with  the  federal  minister,  Mr.  Gray.  Of 
course,  the  member  is  much  closer  to  him 
than  I  am,  geographically  and  philosophi- 
cally, and  I  assume  he  is  making  his  views 
known  as  well. 

I  can  say  to  the  honourable  member,  not 
only  is  Windsor  of  concern  and  of  interest, 
but  any  alteration  of  the  auto  pact  must,  of 
course,  take  into  account  the  needs  of  Amer- 
ican Motors  in  the  great  city  of  Brampton. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Has  the  Premier  or  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman)  had 
any  talks  at  all  with  Chrysler  about  produc- 
ing in  Canada— and  making  it  an  international 
vehicle— their  very  good  safety  oar,  which 
they  have  had  on  the  books  for  six  or  seven 
years,  as  a  means  of  getting  fully  into  the 
production  of  a  car  in  Ontario  and  in  Can- 
ada that  would  really  have  a  sales  market? 

Secondly,  as  the  Premier  has  stated  he 
knows  so  much  about  the  Windsor  situation, 
he  must  know  last  night's  budget  with  its 
$700  maximum  rebate  for  a  van  purchase  is 
not  really  going  to  materially  help  the  em- 
ployment situation  in  Windsor.  What  will 
the  Premier  do  for  Windsor  in  terms  of 
meaningful  public  works  programs  this 
winter  and  support  for  all  those  social 
service  agencies  whose  needs  have  gone  up 
tremendously  and  whose  budgets  have  to  be 
cut? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
first  part  of  the  supplementary  was  in  fact 
a  supplementary.  The  second  part  of  the 
question  was  really  a  new  question. 

In  answer  to  the  first  part  of  the  question, 
there  have  been  rather  wide-ranging  discus- 
sions with  Chrysler,  in  which  I  have  not 
taken  part,  related  to  this  "safety  car."  In 
answer  to  the  second  part  of  the  question, 
this  government  has  always  assisted  those 
people  who  have  genuine  needs  and  will  con- 
tinue to  do  so. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
advise  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  that  the  Chrysler  car  is  not  a  gas 
guzzler  and,  according  to  all  statistics,  it 
is  equal  to,  if  not  better  than,  all  other 
makes. 


4296 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  have  a  supplementary  to  the  Premier: 
Is  the  Premier  aware  that  Chrysler  produces 
two-door  models  in  Canada,  and  since 
family  cars  have  a  tendency  to  be  four-door 
models  and  station  wagons,  we  should  stress 
to  the  company  they  should  be  making  a 
family  car? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  de- 
lighted to  hear  the  honourable  member  sup- 
port Chrysler  products.  I  have  been  driving 
one  for  more  years  than  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party,  who  has  become 
a  recent  convert. 

Mr.  Nixon:  When  was  the  last  time  you 
bought  one? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  my 
wife  has,  but  I  have  not.  I  will  make  the 
point  to  Chrysler  that  the  honourable  mem- 
ber suggests  families  find  it  easier  to  get 
into  four-door  cars  than  two-door  cars. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Particularly  if  they  have  a 
weight  problem. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  On  a  point  of  personal 
privilege,  I  want  to  say  that  I  have  never 
felt  the  member  for  Essex  North  has  had 
a  weight  problem.  The  member  for  London 
Centre  may  think  so,  but  I  do  not. 

ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Peterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  to 
the  Treasurer:  Now  that  he  has  had  at  least 
12  hours  to  reflect  on  the  statement  he  read 
last  night,  is  the  Treasurer  prepared  to  stand 
up  and  admit  his  commitment  to  so-called 
structural  reform  or  structural  investment  in 
the  economy  is  less  than  it  was  under  the 
old  employment  development  fund  program? 
In  that  he  budgeted  $300  million  over  two 
years,  averaging  $150  million  a  year,  yet  the 
extent  of  his  commitment  to  the  end  of  1982, 
according  to  his  own  figures,  is  only  $100 
million,  of  which  $20  million  is  going  to 
equalize  rural  hydro  rates.  So  his  only  real 
commitment  in  terms  of  structural  reform  is 
about  $80  million,  substantially  less  than  he 
was  spending  in  the  last  two  years. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  tried  to 
explain,  even  on  the  radio  program  the  mem- 
ber and  I  shared  this  morning,  that  certain 
elements  of  the  employment  development 
fund  that  were  becoming  programmatic  as 
time  went  on  were  being  incorporated  into 
the  budgets  of  ministries.  These  programs 
have  been  quite  successful.  They  no  longer 
needed  the  individual  decision-making  ap- 
proach of  the  employment  development 
board. 


They  were  better  handled  by  a  program 
within  a  ministry  of  government,  such  as  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  the  Minis- 
try of  Natural  Resources  and  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  We 
have  a  small  business  development  corpora- 
tion handled  by  the  Ministry  of  Revenue. 
We  have  the  program  for  mineral  resource 
exploration  handled  by  Natural  Resources. 
We  have  the  tourism  redevelopment  program 
handled  by  Industry  and  Tourism.  They  are 
now  becoming  parts  of  programs  and  those 
moneys  continue  to  flow. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Given  the  carryover  of  some 
of  these  programs,  the  new  initiatives  in  new 
investment  in  productive  capacity  in  this 
province  is  less  than  it  was  under  the  old 
program.  Even  though  the  board  has  been 
renamed  the  Board  of  Industrial  Leadership 
and  Development,  BILD  or  bust  or  whatever, 
as  opposed  to  EDF,  it  is  less  and  there  is  no 
substantial  change  of  any  type  whatsover 
in  this  specious  document  that  was  presented 
last  night,  is  there  not? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  think  an  important 
factor  has  been  missed  and  that  is  the  re- 
view of  the  moneys  already  being  spent  in 
the  co-ordination  of  activities  A  lot  of  people 
have  criticized— I  believe  the  member  has 
when  he  has  talked  about  it— Treasury's  role 
in  these  matters.  What  I  am  saying  is  the 
Treasury  role  as  a  co-ordinator  of  economic 
activity  with  the  power  to  look  at  existing 
programs  was  strengthened  in  the  board 
called  BILD.  We  had  a  different  name  for  it 
earlier.  It  was  going  to  be  called  BRED  but 
we  did  not  think  that  one  would  work  out  so 
well. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  When  the  minister  looked 
in  the  mirror  he  knew  that  was  impossible 
too. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  do  not  spell  quite  the 
same  way  as  the  member  does.  The  fact  re- 
mains, I  would  argue  we  are  going  to  be 
making  much  more  efficient  use  of  some  of 
the  $2  billion  currently  being  spent  by  minis- 
tries that  are  economically  related,  as  well  as 
adding  more  moneys  to  the  program. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  reference  to  the  BILD  program  which  the 
Treasurer  is  so  proud  of,  perhaps  the  Treas- 
urer could  tell  us  why  he  needed  that  de- 
laying tactic  called  BILD,  which  really  puts 
off  any  decisions  on  rebuilding  key  sectors 
until  another  year  at  least  and  he  may  not 
even  be  there  to  make  those  decisions? 

Perhaps  the  Treasurer  could  tell  us  why 
he  needs  that  kind  of  delay,  that  kind  of  time, 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4297 


to  understand  that  a  key  sector  such  as  min- 
ing machinery  needs  to  be  rebuilt?  We  have 
all  the  information  there.  Statistics  Canada 
provides  us  with  information  monthly  on  how 
bad  it  is. 

Does  the  Treasurer  not  agree  it  would1  be 
better  to  look  at  a  sector  such  as  mining 
machinery  where  imports  are  high,  where 
there  is  a  large  deficit,  where  jobs  are  skilled 
and  where  there  is  a  high  component  of  re- 
gional development,  in  the  development  of 
the  mining  machinery  complex  in  northern 
Ontario? 

Why  did  the  Treasurer  not  take  a  sector 
and  make  a  firm  commitment  to  put  a  sub- 
stantial amount  of  investment  into  that  sector 
to  rebuild  it  so  we  can  have  key  sectors  re- 
built for  the  future? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
exactly  the  kind  of  thing  we  expect  to  do. 
I  do  not  know  where  the  member  gets  the 
idea  of  a  delay  of  a  year.  That  is  precisely 
one  of  the  sectors  I  am  going  to  look  at. 

HOSPITAL  EMERGENCY  SERVICES 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Health.  In  view 
of  the  minister's  often  strident  defence  of 
his  responsibility  to  health  care  in  Ontario, 
will  he  explain  to  this  House  the  inadequacy 
of  the  treatment  afforded  one  Mary  Ann 
Thomson,  22  years  of  age,  in  my  riding,  who 
on  October  15  had  part  of  her  right  thumb 
sliced  off  in  a  meat  slicing  machine  in  the 
establishment  where  she  worked?  She  had 
her  hand  bandaged,  the  piece  of  thumb  was 
packed  on  ice  and  she  was  sent  to  Hamilton 
General  Hospital  where  they  took  details  of 
the  accident. 

She  was  left  on  a  stretcher  from  2:20  p.m. 
to  4:40  p.m.  before  she  was  finally  moved 
to  a  surgical  room.  At  5:45  p.m.  they  finally 
had  a  doctor  there  who  ordered  the  piece 
of  the  thumb  thrown  out  because  it  should 
have  been  packed  in  salt  on  arrival  at  the 
hospital.  They  did  not  have  adequate  sur- 
gical supplies  and  they  draped  her  hand  in  a 
doctor's  green  gown  when  they  were  clean- 
ing it  up  before  the  operation.  A  number  of 
other  pieces  of  equipment  were  inadequate 
for  the  operation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
familiar  with  the  individual  case  nor  with 
the  other  quarter  of  a  million  a  day  that 
go  through  the  health  care  system.  I  will 
have  to  have  my  staff  contact  Dr.  Noonan, 
the  executive  director  of  the  hospital,  to 
ascertain  any  further  facts  in  the  case  and 


get  an  answer  to  the  honourable  member's 
question.  That  is  all  I  can  do  at  this  time. 

11:10  a.m. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Can  I  also  ask  the  min- 
ister whether  or  not  he  will  take  the  respon- 
sibility in  this  House  for  the  inadequacy  of 
the  treatment  that  his  policies  are  causing 
for  people  in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  With  respect,  if  the 
honourable  member  is  prepared  to  give  me 
the  personal  credit  for  every  miracle  which 
is  performed  on  a  daily  basis  in  the  health 
care  system,  then  I  might  entertain  his  ques- 
tion. It  is  a  stupid  question. 

DREE  ASSISTANCE 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Treasurer.  As  a  result  of  the 
recent  meetings  with  the  federal  officials,  can 
the  Treasurer  indicate  any  progress  in  having 
the  benefits  for  regional  development  under 
the  Department  of  Regional  Economic  Ex- 
pansion program  extended  to  include  the 
northern  part  of  Simcoe  county,  the  district 
of  Muskoka  and  the  northern  parts  of,  I 
understand,   Grey  county  as  well? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  honour- 
able member  mentioned  one  area  that  cer- 
tainly attracted  my  attention  in  his  comments 
when  he  got  to  Muskoka.  On  Wednesday 
night,  I  believe  it  was,  several  ministers  from 
Ontario  met  with  several  federal  ministers 
under  the  chairmanship  of  Mr.  De  Bane  to 
discuss  DREE  programs.  I  was  not  present 
for  a  number  of  reasons.  I  think  the  Minister 
of  Northern  Affairs  (Mr.  Bernier)  was  there, 
and  I  believe  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development  (Mr.  Brunelle)  was 
there  also,  so  they  could  probably  bring  the 
member  more  up  to  date  on  the  actual  events. 
I  understood  it  was  a  good  meeting  but  that 
any  attempt  by  us  to  have  these  counties  in- 
cluded that  was  felt  were  in  some  trouble 
still  fell  on  deaf  ears. 

One  of  the  reasons  I  brought  in  the  rural 
Ontario  program  was  just  that.  We  made 
several  pleas  to  DREE  to  include  counties 
such  as  Grey,  Bruce,  Simcoe  North,  Hali- 
burton,  Victoria,  Muskoka  in  the  kind  of  as- 
sistance programs  that  were  available  through 
DREE  for  eastern  Ontario.  When  we  failed, 
we  thought  the  second-best  approach  was  to 
have  Ontario  design  a  program  for  those 
counties  and  that  is  what  I  announced  in  the 
budget. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  Will  there  be  any  further 
meetings  with  the  federal  ministries  for  on- 


4298 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


going  negotiations   to   attempt  to   bring  this 
about? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  We  will  continue  to 
meet  with  the  federal  ministers  because  we 
do  that  at  least  once  a  year,  and  recently  it 
has  been  twice  in  the  last  three  or  four 
months.  I  am  not  optimistic  that  they  are 
willing  to  concede  there  was  a  need  to  help 
those  areas.  I  think  we  had  a  fair  amount  of 
support  from  both  sides  of  the  House  on  our 
representations  for  those  counties  but  it  did 
not  seem  to  succeed. 

SUSPENSION  OF  DOCTOR 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
for  the  Minister  of  Health.  It  concerns  the 
latest  report  of  the  discipline  committee  of 
the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  of 
Ontario  and  in  particular  the  judgement 
against  Dr.  Eric  August  Deernsted  of  the 
Ottawa  area. 

The  discipline  committee  found  the  said 
doctor  guilty  of  two  counts  of  professional 
misconduct.  The  first  was  that  he  falsified  a 
record  in  respect  to  the  examination  or  treat- 
ment of  his  patient  in  a  discharge  summary 
which  portrayed  a  completely  misleading 
picture  of  the  patient's  clinical  condition. 
The  second  professional  misconduct  involved 
sexual  impropriety  in  that  this  doctor  began 
a  course  of  conduct  with  a  married,  ill, 
female  patient  which  culminated  in  an  in- 
timate sexual  relationship.  I  believe  those  to 
be  very  serious  violations  of  professional 
conduct. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  the  college, 
through  the  discipline  committee,  meted  out 
the  penalty  of  30  days'  suspension?  Would 
the  minister,  having  regard  to  his  responsi- 
bility to  protect  the  public  interest  in  so  far 
as  the  health  discipline  legislation  is  con- 
cerned, not  agree  with  me  that  this  is  a  piti- 
fully inadequate  response  by  this  self-govern- 
ing regulator  with  respect  to  the  charges 
involved? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of 
all,  just  to  complete  the  record^so  it  does 
not  sound  too  much  like  As  the  World 
Turns— the  doctor  in  question  married  the 
lady  in  question,  just  to  complete  the 
member's  description  of  events. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Is  that  new  health  policy? 
Called  preventive  medicine  is  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  No.  If  the  member 
would  like  me  to  counsel  him  on  that  at 
some  point  in  time,  I  would  be  glad  to,  or 
maybe    the    member    for    Renfrew    North. 


Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all,  a  30-day  suspen- 
sion is  not  an  inconsiderable  penalty  in 
terms  of  the  maintenance  of  a  practice  of 
medicine  and  the  maintenance  of  a  reputa- 
tion. In  fact,  even  the  very  finding  of  guilt 
by  the  discipline  committee  and  the  publi- 
cation of  that,  I  suggest  to  the  member,  is 
a  serious  matter  in  the  maintenance  of  an 
ongoing  career  in  medicine. 

Second,  there  was  a  lay  person— my  under- 
standing is  there  always  is  a  lay  person 
appointed  by  the  government  sitting  on  the 
discipline  committee— who  was  involved  in 
this  particular  decision. 

Third,  the  government  does  not  have  the 
authority  under  the  legislation  to  intervene 
in  a  particular  judgement.  From  time  to  time 
I  do  take  up  with  the  college  some  of  its 
decisions,  and  I  must  say  I  find  on  the  whole 
the  college  is  very  thorough  in  its  investiga- 
tions and  goes  to  a  great  deal  of  difficulty 
to  attempt  to  arrive  at  just  decisions. 

One  of  the  aspects  of  this  case  that  does 
concern  me  is  this  question  of  the  falsifi- 
cation of  hospital  records,  and  I  have  direct- 
ed my  staff  to  look  into  the  matter  to  see 
if  further  action  on  our  part  with  respect 
to  the  Public  Hospitals  Act  is  warranted. 

Mr.  Conway:  I  could  not  disagree  more 
with  what  I  think  is  a  perfectly  outrageous 
beginning  to  the  minister's  answer.  The  fact 
that  this  particular  doctor  married  this  par- 
ticular patient  after  these  violations  is  of  no 
real  consequence  to  me  at  all,  and  I  think 
it  is  just  a  totally  unacceptable  response 
from  the  minister. 

Is  the  minister  aware,  given  what  he  said 
at  the  end  of  his  answer  about  the  falsifi- 
cation of  medical  records,  that  the  involved 
third  party,  the  Queensway-Carleton  Hospi- 
tal, and  in  particular  the  director  of  the 
medical  staff  there,  is  not  yet  aware  of 
precisely  what  transpired  at  that  hearing 
that  had  such  a  direct  effect  on  his  hospital? 
Does  the  minister  not  think  the  time  has 
come  that  some  formal  mechanism  be  struck 
for  the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons 
to  directly  involve  third  parties  like  hospitals 
so  that  they  will  not  be  left,  as  the  Queens- 
way-Carleton is  in  this  instance,  completely 
in  the  dark  as  to  why  this  particular  doctor's 
licence  is  being  suspended  and  how  they 
might  be  on  guard  to  monitor  the  kind  of 
outrageous  conduct  that  led  to  the  suspen- 
sion in  the  first  place? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  could 
be  wrong  and  I  will  check  this,  but  I  believe 
that   either   of   the   parties   to   a   disciplinary 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4299 


matter  has  the  right  to  call  before  the  dis- 
ciplinary committee,  to  offer  their  advice 
and/or  information,  whomsoever  they  please, 
so  the  involvement  of  third  parties— and 
again  I  will  confirm  this— is  part  of  the 
process. 

Secondly,  I  did  not  start  my  answer  to  be 
good,  but  rather  to  complete  the  back- 
ground which  the  member  was  giving.  I 
think  we  are  dealing  with  some  verv  com- 
plicated interpersonal  relationships.  I  want 
to  put  those  in  perspective.  I  want  to  deal 
with  the  professional  question  and  I  want  to 
deal  with  the  hospital  question. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  Will 
the  minister  advise  the  House  and  the  people 
of  Ontario  today  that  South  Cayuga  is  no 
longer  under  consideration  as  a  possible  site 
for  a  liquid  industrial  waste  disposal  facility? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Does  the  minister  not  recall 
that  he  asked  James  F.  MacLaren  Limited, 
an  independent  consultant,  to  identify  the 
best  possible  areas  for  locating  these  facili- 
ties? Given  that  MacLaren  reported  very 
specifically  that  South  Cayuga  was  not  even 
minimally  acceptable,  does  the  minister  not 
agree  that  his  intervention  and  direction  to 
MacLaren  to  study  South  Cayuga  and  other 
sites  that  are  politically  embarrassing  to  that 
government  has  seriously  jeopardized  the  in- 
dependence, the  impartiality  and  the  public 
trust  in  the  MacLaren  study?  Will  the  min- 
ister withdraw  his  political  interference  today 
so  that  public  trust  in  the  independence  of 
MacLaren  can  bo  restored  before  he  makes 
his  announcement  on  November  25? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  There  are  about  four  an- 
swers of  no  to  that,  but  I  would  only  add 
that  I  think  it  is  of  paramount  importance 
that  the  ministry,  and  myself  as  well,  should 
ask  the  MacLaren  people— it  is  a  very  com- 
prehensive study— to  look  at  land  that  is 
owned  by  the  government.  I  am  sure  if  we 
did  not  do  so  we  would  be  criticized.  I  have 
no  intention  of  taking  the  advice  of  the 
member  opposite. 

11:20  a.m. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Could  the  minister  indicate  to  this 
House  the  cost  of  the  study  that  is  taking 
place  at  the  present  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  About  $425,000. 


LAND  SEVERANCE 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  yester- 
day the  member  for  Huron-Middlesex  asked 
me  a  question:  "Can  the  minister  explain 
why  an  order  in  council  was  issued  on  his 
advice  on  July  31,  1980,  to  grant  a  severance 
on  agricultural  land  in  Vespra  township?" 
He  went  on  in  his  statement  to  ask,  "If  the 
minister  felt  so  compelled  to  support  this 
severance,  why  did  he  not  do  so  at  the  hear- 
ing before  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board?" 
I  note  the  honourable  member  is  here  now 
and  I  do  have  the  order  in  council  here. 

On  the  severance  in  question,  Mr.  George 
Atkinson  operates  a  large  dairy  farm  in 
Vespra  township  with  several  full-time  farm 
helpers.  Mr.  Atkinson  applied  to  the  Vespra 
committee  of  adjustment  for  a  severance  for 
farm  help.  The  committee  approved  the 
severance.  The  township  council  appealed 
this  to  the  OMB. 

To  accommodate  his  hired  workers,  the 
petitioner  proposed  to  construct  two  dwel- 
lings and  to  hire  someone,  perhaps  the  wife 
of  one  of  the  workers,  to  provide  the  services 
his  wife  at  present  provides.  For  this  purpose, 
Mr.  Atkinson  needs  to  sever  a  parcel  of  land 
having  a  100-foot  frontage  and  a  200-foot 
depth  from  a  total  parcel  of  45  acres.  The 
lot  to  be  severed  fronts  on  a  township  road 
and  is  adjacent  to  the  community  of  Crown 
Hill  in  the  township  of  Vespra. 

The  committee  of  adjustment  of  the  town- 
ship of  Vespra  granted  the  petitioner's  appli- 
cation for  severance.  I  have  a  copy  of  this 
decision  if  the  member  wishes  it.  There  was 
no  opposition  placed  before  the  committee  of 
adjustment.  No  written  submissions  were  re- 
ceived by  the  committee  in  opposition  to  Mr. 
Atkinson's  severance. 

The  following  persons  and  agencies  re- 
ceived notice  of  Mr.  Atkinson's  application: 
(a)  the  clerk  of  the  township  of  Vespra;  (b) 
the  issuer  of  building  permits  for  the  town- 
ship; (c)  the  secretary  of  the  Vespra  Planning 
Board;  (d)  the  clerk  of  the  county  of  Simcoe, 
and  (e)  the  central  county  health  unit.  None 
of  these  persons  or  agencies  appeared  or  gave 
any  written  submission  of  any  nature  whatso- 
ever. There  was  no  opposition. 

Some  time  later  an  appeal  was  taken  by 
the  township  of  Vespra  against  the  decision  of 
the  committee  granting  Mr.  Atkinson's  sever- 
ance. The  township  gave  no  reason  for  this 
appeal.  At  the  OMB  hearing,  the  only  grounds 
for  the  appeal  advanced  by  the  township 
were  that  Mr.  Atkinson's  proposal  did  not 
fall  within  one  of  the  specific  exemptions 
enumerated  in  the  official  plan. 


4300 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  uncontradicted  evidence  of  the  OMB 
hearing  was  that  the  subject  lands  are  the 
poorest  of  the  lands  owned  by  Mr.  Atkinson. 
The  lands  are  generally  wet,  and  attempts  to 
tile-drain  the  lands  have  been  unsuccessful. 
After  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to  grow 
crops,  Mr.  Atkinson  allowed  the  lands  to 
revert  to  pasture.  This  evidence  as  to  the  agri- 
cultural capability  of  the  land  was  uncon- 
tradicted at  the  hearing  of  the  OMB  and  no 
argument  was  placed  against  it. 

The  evidence  before  the  board  was  that  the 
lot  the  petitioner  proposes  to  sever  is  located 
just  west  of  Highway  93,  fronting  on  a  town- 
ship road  known  as  Side  Road  15.  There  are  a 
number  of  residences,  and  I  will  get  that,  Mr. 
Speaker,  because  I  did  mention  that  earlier 
in  my  remarks. 

The  evidence  again  was  uncontradicted  that 
the  proposed  lot  would  fall  within  the  com- 
munity of  Crown  Hill.  Again  if  there  is  a  re- 
quest for  it,  I  will  give  the  plan.  The  official 
plan  for  the  Vespra  planning  area  referred 
to  above  provides  that  wherever  farm  animal 
operations  are  to  be  carried  out,  the  agricul- 
tural code  of  practice  and  the  fool  land  guide- 
lines should  be  followed. 

Mr.  Dale  Toombs,  government  representa- 
tive and  Simcoe  county  field  officer  with  the 
food  land  development  branch  of  the  ministry, 
applied  minimum  distance  separation  formula 
number  one  to  the  subject  lands  and  found 
that  the  proposed  lot  met  the  minimum  dis- 
tance separation  criteria  established  by  the 
code.  He  found  the  distance  between  the 
proposed  lot  and  the  closest  livestock  opera- 
tion was  more  than  adequate  to  avoid  any 
potential  environmental  conflict  between  the 
two. 

Mr.  Toombs's  evidence  was  uncontradicted. 
He  stated  the  prevailing  government  policy  in 
respect  to  the  petitioner's  application  is  found 
in  the  food  land  guidelines.  He  stated  the 
particular  policies  enunciated  in  the  guide- 
lines and  applicable  to  the  subject  land  were 
as  follows— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  this  important? 

Hon.   Mr.  Henderson:    Mr.    Speaker,   it  is 
important  that  the  honourable  members- 
Mr.   Cassidy:    It  is   an   abuse   of  the  pri- 
vate members'  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  It  is  important.  The 
honourable  minister  has  taken  six  minutes 
and  30  seconds,  which  I  am  going  to  add  to 
the  question  period.  It  is  just  a  question  of 
how  long  the  minister  persists  because  I  in- 
tend to  add  to  the  question  period.  I  would 
suggest  that  in  future  if  the  minister  organ- 


izes his  material  a  little  better,  it  would  allow 
for  a  supplementary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  thank 
you,  but  this  is  pertinent  information.  The 
honourable  member  made  serious  charges 
about  my  staff.  They  should  be  answered  in 
an  appropriate  way. 

To  continue:  The  general  policy  relating 
to  the  preservation  of  good  agricultural  land 
subject  to  some  exceptions;  the  provision  of 
severances  for  the  establishment  of  accom- 
modation for  full-time  farm  help. 

Mr.  Toombs  stated  that  in  this  instance  the 
prevailing  policy,  that  is  the  policy  of  great- 
est relevance,  is  found  in  section  4A.20  of 
the  guidelines.  This  section  relates  to  farm- 
related  severances.  The  relevant  subsection  of 
section  4A.20— I  could  read  that,  but  I  will 
not  at  this  time. 

The  only  thing  I  add  is  that  this  operation 
milks  about  80  cows.  They  ship  thorough- 
bred stock  all  over  the  world.  There  is  a 
farmer  and  two  sons  with  six  full-time 
helpers.  The  farmer's  wife  provides  lodging 
and  boarding  for  this  help,  but  her  health 
lias  got  to  the  point  that  they  decided  they 
would  have  to  contract  this  work  out  to  the 
wife  of  one  of  the  employees  of  the  farm. 
That  is  the  reason  for  the  severance. 

I  have  no  problems  and  no  reservations 
with  the  decision  of  cabinet.  Our  action  was 
in  keeping  with  all  the  policies  and  for  the 
good  of  the  farm  people  of  this  province. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  answer  took  eight  min- 
utes, so  we  will  add  another  five  to  the 
question  period. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Would  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
ask  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  for  a  copy  of 
the  letter  that  Was  sent  to  him  by  the  clerk- 
treasurer  of  Vespra  township?  It  would  indi- 
cate that  what  he  has  told  us  this  morning 
is  rubbish.  Would  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  not  also  agree  that  the  grant- 
ing of  that  severance  was  in  contravention 
of  the  township  official  plan  and  the  zoning 
bylaw  and  that  it  flies  in  the  face  of  his  own 
food  land  guidelines?  What  is  the  purpose 
of  a  municipality  going  to  the  trouble  of 
drawing  up  official  plans  and  zoning  bylaws 
to  meet  the  requirements  laid  down  by  this 
government  if  cabinet  can  overturn  them  all? 

11:30  a.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
certainly  read  the  letter  to  our  Premier,  a 
letter  that  our  Premier  will  respond  to.  Early 
in  my  statement  I  responded  that  the  official 
plan    did    carry    a    clause   that   farm-related 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4301 


severances  should  be  in  keeping  with  our 
code  of  practice  and  food  land  guidelines. 
This  severance  is  certainly  in  keeping  with 
them  all  the  way. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Read  the  letter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  should  go 
up  and  have  a  look  at  it. 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  have  the  letter.  I  want  the 
minister  to  read  it.  There  was  never  any 
stronger  language  than  that  laid  out  to  him 
in  that  letter. 

NIAGARA  RIVER  POLLUTION 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  Will 
the  minister  comment  on  the  statement  by 
the  United  States  chairman  of  the  Interna- 
tional Joint  Commission  who  stated  he  does 
not  know  how  government  can  allow  SCA 
Chemical  Services  Limited  to  put  more  waste 
in  the  Niagara  River  when  there  are  apparent 
violations  there  now?  Is  this  not  a  concern 
the  Deputy  Premier  (Mr.  Welch)  stated 
months  ago  when  he  told  a  private  citizens' 
meeting  in  Niagara  Falls,  New  York,  that  not 
another  drop  should  go  into  that  river?  Now, 
in  this  morning's  paper,  we  have  the  chair- 
man of  the  IJC  making  those  comments.  How 
does  the  minister  react  to  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
have  reacted,  not  only  this  morning  but  some 
time  ago.  I  went  to  see  the  governor.  He  was 
unable  to  see  me.  Therefore,  I  saw  the  com- 
missioner of  New  York  state.  We  had  a  very 
long  visit  in  the  capital  of  New  York,  Albany. 
There  is  no  doubt  in  his  mind  about  my 
concern  about  the  Niagara  River. 

I  am  not  going  to  be  a  phoney  in  this 
situation  and  start  to  make  idle  comments.  I 
will  not  do  that.  I  think  the  honourable 
member  knows  me  well  enough  to  know  I 
will  not  do  that.  The  member  knows  my 
concern,  and  it  is  as  genuine  as  it  can  pos- 
sibly be.  But  I  do  not  think  the  story  ends 
with  just  saying,  "We  do  not  want  another 
drop  to  go  in  there."  We  do  have  an  industry 
that  needs  treatment  facilities. 

I  will  tell  the  member  this,  there  has 
never  been  a  commitment  more  dear  to  me. 
When  we  have  the  facilities  we  are  going  to 
have  in  this  province,  the  best  in  the  world, 
and  we  now  have  the  best  waybill  system 
on  the  continent- 
Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Yes,  that  is  true-then 
we  will  scream  from  the  highest  mountain, 
"You  follow  our  lead."  We  are  going  to  be 


in  that  position,  there  is  no  doubt  about  it. 
I  want  to  scream  loud  and  clear,  but  I  want 
to  do  it  from  a  position  where  there  is  clear 
leadership.  That  will  be  established  in  this 
province  in  1982. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Supplementary:  Will  the  min- 
ister accelerate  the  testing  at  Walker  Brothers 
now  to  be  certain  as  to  what  is  in  those 
drums  so  we  can  clear  the  air?  My  concern 
is  that  if  we  do  not  clean  up  that  matter  im- 
mediately, I  want  some  reassurance  from 
the  minister  that  those  liquid  wastes  will  not 
go  into  the  river.  I  am  very  concerned  that 
the  solidification  process  should  go  into 
place,  and  I  would  like  the  minister  to  take 
the  initiative  now  and  not  just  wait.  Let  us 
clear  up  that  matter  at  Walker  Brothers. 
Will  he  accelerate  that  process? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  sorry  to  say  the 
member  is  way  behind.  We  have  done  that. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  We  do  not  have  the  evidence 
yet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Whoa,  whoa,  whoa.  I 
must  tell  the  member  we  have  done  that. 
We  do  not  have  the  results.  I  told  the  House 
yesterday  we  are  taking  all  those  and 
sampling  them.  We  happen  to  have  the  best 
lab  facilities  in  North  America  to  be  able 
to  do  it.  Think  about  that  for  a  moment.  No 
one  can  test  the  drums  as  thoroughly  as  we 
can  here  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  When  do  you  get  the  results? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  We  said  we  would  do  it. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
How  can  the  minister  say  he  is  accelerating 
the  testing  in  Walker  Brothers  Quarries 
when  he  knows  there  are  hundreds  of  drums 
and  to  date  he  has  unearthed  only  nine  of 
them?  That  is  going  to  take  three  or  four 
years  at  that  rate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  sorry  to  say  the 
member  is  absolutely  incorrect.  Again  that 
is  not  true. 

AID  TO  PENSIONERS 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  two- 
part  question  of  the  Minister  of  Revenue. 
Does  he  know  that  his  ad  informing  seniors 
that  the  ministry's  office  is  located  at  77 
Bloor  Street  West  instead  of  Queen's  Park 
appeared  on  the  business  page  of  the  To- 
ronto Star  on  November  1?  Does  he  think  a 
majority  of  seniors  are  likely  to  read  the 
business  page? 

Secondly,  has  he  cheeked  the  reception 
desk  downstairs  since  the  ad  appeared  to  see 
how  many  seniors  are  still  coming  to  Queen's 


4302 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Park  for  information  and  is  there  any  service 
at  the  reception  desk  to  provide  them  with 
phone  calls  to  the  ministry  or  application 
forms? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
control  over  the  newspapers  as  to  where  they 
are  going  to  put  the  ads  when  we  ask  them 
to  advertise.  I  would  agree  with  the  member 
that  if  it  were  on  the  financial  page,  perhaps 
some  of  the  senior  citizens  would  not  see  it. 
I  do  not  have  control  over  the  Globe  and 
Mail  or  the  Toronto  Star  to  tell  them  where 
they  are  going  to  put  ads.  I  have  to  accept 
that  when  an  ad  is  placed,  they  decide  the 
layout  of  the  paper,  not  I. 

As  far  as  the  desk  downstairs  is  concerned, 
it  is  my  understanding  the  people  at  the  desk 
do  call  the  ministry  office  if  someone  appears 
there,  so  I   think  that  is  being  looked  after. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Supplementary:  I  am  sure 
the  minister  is  aware  one  can  ask  for  the 
section  of  the  paper  where  one  wants  the 
ad  put  but  that  appears  not  to  have  been 
done.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister,  since 
there  are  820,000  old  age  pensioners  who 
received  application  forms  and,  according  to 
his  figures,  only  540,000  have  sent  in  applica- 
tion forms  and  only  54,000  are  in  nursing 
homes  and  so  on,  is  he  following  up  on  the 
more  than  200,000  seniors  who  have  not 
responded  and  who  may  lose  out  on  this  tax 
relief  simply  because  they  cannot  understand 
the  forms  or  cannot  get  through  on  the  tele- 
phone for  assistance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  figure  of  820,000  is 
the  total  number  of  seniors  in  Ontario.  Not 
all  of  them  were  mailed  application  forms.  A 
family  received  one  application  form,  not 
two.  That  is  taken  from  the  old  age  supple- 
ment files.  The  820,000  figure  comes  from 
the  fact  we  sent  out  a  retail  sales  tax  grant 
of  $50.  Each  senior  citizen  received  that 
without  application. 

There  were,  in  effect,  540,000  applications 
sent  out.  Those  were  the  ones  dealing  with 
families.  In  other  words,  if  there  were  a  man 
and  wife  living  together,  they  got  one  appli- 
cation. That  is  why  it  was  reduced  from 
820,000  to  540,000.  All  the  people  eligible 
for  the  property  tax  grants  whom  we  are 
aware  of  have  received  the  applications,  with 
the  exception  of  those  who  may  be  landed 
immigrants,  who  must  come  to  us  if  we  do 
not  have  a  file  on  them.  All  the  rest  of  them 
have  received  their  applications. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  the  minister  be  surprised 
that  the  reason  for  the  ad  appearing  in  the 


business  section  of  the  Globe  and  Mail  would 
be  that  this  has  the  highest  line  rate  in  the 
Globe  and  Mail,  thereby  enabling  the  ad 
agency  to  make  an  even  greater  commission? 
Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  last  ad  put  in  was 
not  a  planned  ad,  as  was  the  rest  of  the 
program.  It  was  an  addition  to  the  advertis- 
ing program  at  the  request,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  of  some  members  of  the  NDP.  We  had 
to  accept  the  space  we  could  get  on  such 
short  notice.  I  wanted  to  get  the  ads  in  to 
explain  some  of  the  difficulties  the  ministry 
was  having  and  to  get  in  the  address  re- 
quested, so  people  would  be  able  to  get  to 
the  proper  office  rather  than  the  Queen's 
Park  address.  It  was  an  additional  ad  to  the 
regular  advertising  program  and  we  had  to 
accept  the  space  available  to  us  on  short 
notice. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  November  6 
I  asked  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  (Mr.  Parrott).  He  stated  he 
would  reply  on  November  7.  He  did  not 
reply  that  day.  I  raised  a  question  of  privi- 
lege and  he  gave  a  commitment  to  this 
House  that  he  would  reply  shortly.  This 
issue  is  distinct  from  what  we  are  discussing 
this  week  because  it  concerns  another  prop- 
erty, but  it  is  a  revelation  of  ministry 
negligence  and  Walker's  violation,  once 
again,  of  environmental  law.  Would  you 
bring  to  the  attention  of  the  minister  that 
his  answer  is  long  overdue? 

Mr.  Speaker:   I  am  sure  he  heard  that. 

11:40  a.m. 

ACCESS  TO  LEGISLATIVE  BUILDING 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on 
a  point  of  privilege  to  thank  you  for  your 
prompt  response  to  the  point  I  raised  yester- 
day. I  very  much  appreciate  your  having 
written  to  the  superintendent  of  the  Ontario 
Provincial  Police  securities  branch,  which 
administers  the  Ontario  Government  Protec- 
tive Service. 

However,  I  remain  quite  concerned  about 
what  I  view  to  be  the  patently  ludicrous 
interpretation  placed  on  your  security  guide- 
lines by  Acting  Senior  Supervisor  Watts 
yesterday.  I  would  ask  that  you  refer  this 
matter  to  the  standing  committee  on  proce- 
dural affairs  for  consideration  and  advice. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  It  is  really  not  a  concern 
of  the  procedural  affairs  committee.  It  is  the 
responsibility  of  the  Speaker  and  the  Board 
of  Internal  Economy. 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4303 


Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  think  we  ought  to 
do  something  about  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  are  monitoring  it  and 
I  am  quite  sure  things  are  proceeding  as  they 
should. 

IDENTIFICATION  OF  MEMBER 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise 
to  correct  the  record  and  it  is  a  breach  of 
my  privilege  as  well,  in  a  sense— the  prob- 
lem of  names  and  party  affiliations.  On 
November  6  I  made  a  speech  in  the  consti- 
tution debate  in  which  I  attacked  the  Pre- 
mier savagely  from  time  to  time.  Yet  in  the 
"Speakers  in  this  Issue"  record  at  the  end 
of  it,  I  am  put  down  as  "Johnston,  R.  F., 
Scarborough  West,  PC."  That  hurts  a  good 
deal,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  it  has  happened 
several  times.  I  have  to  rise  to  say,  please 
do  not  confuse  me.  There  is  no  Progressive 
Conservative  who  spoke  out  against  the 
Premier  as  I  did  that  night. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  can  see  the  editor  of  debates 
got  that  comment.  It  will  be  corrected. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

HIGHWAY  TRAFFIC  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  188,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Highway 
Traffic  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

DANGEROUS  GOODS 
TRANSPORTATION  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  189,  The  Dangerous  Goods  Transporta- 
tion Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

URBAN  TRANSPORTATION 

DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

LIMITED  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  190,  An  Act  respecting  Urban  Trans- 
portation Development  Corporation  Limited. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

EMPLOYMENT  STANDARDS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
191,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Employment  Stand- 
ards Act,  1974. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


TORONTO  DISTRICT 
HEATING  CORPORATION  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 

192,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Toronto  Hospitals 
Steam  Corporation  Act,  1968-69. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

MUNICIPAL  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 

193,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal  Act. 
Motion  agreed  to. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  194, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  authorize  the  residential  tenancy 
commissioner  to  order  payment  of  a  tenant's 
costs  when  the  commission  has  determined 
that  the  tenant  paid  rent  in  excess  of  the 
amount  permitted  by  the  act. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  195, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  this 
bill  is  too  require  a  landlord,  upon  the  request 
of  a  tenant,  to  file  certain  receipts  for  ex- 
penditures made  by  the  landlord  with  the 
residential  tenancy  commission. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  wish  to  table  the  answer 
to  question  380  and  the  interim  answer  to 
question  348  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper. 
(See  appendix  page  4315). 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

THIRD  READINGS 

The  following  bills  were  given  third  read- 
ing on  motion: 

Bill  59,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Game  and 
Fish  Act; 

Bill  139,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Shoreline 
Property  Assistance  Act,  1973; 


4304 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Bill  152,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Beef  Cattle 
Marketing  Act; 

Bill  153,  An  Act  to  repeal  the  Warble  Fly 
Control  Act; 

Bill  164,  An  Act  to  amend'  the  Insurance 
Act; 

Bill  165,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Motor 
Vehicle  Accident  Claims  Act; 

Bill  170,  An  Act  to  erect  the  Township  of 
Gloucester  into  a  City  Municipality. 

Bill  171,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Valida- 
tion of  Certain  Adoption  Orders  made  under 
the  Child  Welfare  Act,  1978. 

Bill  175,  An  Act  to  provide  for  Municipal 
Hydroelectric  Service  in  the  City  of  Sudbury. 
11:50  a.m. 

TORONTO  ISLANDS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  181,  An  Act  to  stay  the  Execution  of 
Certain  Writs  of  Possession  issued  in  respect 
of  Certain  Premises  on  Toronto  Islands. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  minister  have  an 
opening  comment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
made  the  comments  that  were  necessary 
yesterday.  I  would  just  like  to  reiterate  to 
the  House  that  the  necessity  of  this  bill  was 
caused  by  the  fact  that  the  Ontario  Court  of 
Appeal  found  on  October  27  that  the  writs 
of  possession  which  Metropolitan  Toronto 
had  asked  for  against  the  residents  on  Toron- 
to Island  were  valid  and  servable  and  the 
sheriff  has  taken  steps  to  serve  those  writs.  In 
fact,  he  would  be  enforcing  them  on  Novem- 
ber 17. 

In  the  interval,  as  I  stated  yesterday  and 
as  members  of  this  House  knew,  we  did  ap- 
point, under  the  authority  of  the  Municipality 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act,  a  one-man 
commissioner,  Barry  Swadron,  QC,  who  has 
been  holding  a  very  full,  thorough  and,  I 
think,  very  good  inquiry  into  this  whole 
matter.  He  has  had  a  number  of  presenta- 
tions. They  tell  me  well  over  100  presenta- 
tions have  been  made  to  him.  He  has  listened 
to  many  of  the  experts  in  both— 

Mr.  Nixon:  Is  that  necessarily  a  good 
thing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Certainly  it  is  a  good 
thing.  He  has  moved  around  and  held  his 
hearings  both  in  the  suburbs  and  in  down- 
town Toronto  and  has  listened  to  the  con- 
cerns of  people  all  over  this  area  in  regard 
to  what  the  future  uses  of  Ward's  and  Al- 
gonquin islands  should  be. 


He  has  just  about  finished  the  formal  part 
of  his  work  and  he  has  to  sit  down  and 
write  his  report.  It  will  probably  be  avail- 
able some  time  in  December.  Therefore,  it 
would  be  ludicrous  to  think  that  some  action 
should  be  taken  in  so  far  as  these  warrants 
are  concerned  at  this  time  when  this  very 
full  report  and  its  recommendations  will  be 
available  to  all  of  us,  and  I  hope  will  form 
the  basis  for  a  permanent  solution  to  this 
very  pressing  matter. 

I  fully  acknowledge  the  sheriff  had  no 
other  choice  because  the  writs  were  asked 
for  by  Metropolitan  Toronto.  We  asked 
Metropolitan  Toronto  not  to  have  those  writs 
enforced  and  they  could  have  relieved  us  of 
the  necessity  of  passing  this  bill  by  saying 
they  would  not  ask  the  sheriff  to  enforce  the 
writs.  Of  course,  that  would  have  enabled 
him  to  hold  up  any  action.  That  was  not 
forthcoming,  so  we  are  asked  to  take  this 
kind  of  action. 

The  date  that  was  picked  is— I  think  I 
used  the  words— stupid  and  inhumane.  I 
regret  that  many  people  thought— and  have 
spoken  to  me  since  about  this— I  was  refer- 
ring to  them  when  I  used  those  remarks. 
Actually  I  was  referring  to  the  date.  It  was 
a  stupid  and  inhumane  date. 

To  suggest  that  people  should  be  evicted 
in  the  cold  weather,  six  weeks  before  Christ- 
mas, certainly  would  not  be  the  kind  of 
thing  that  any  member  of  this  Legislature 
would  believe  should  happen.  I  would  hope 
it  is  not  the  kind  of  thing  that  any  member 
of  council  of  the  municipality  of  Metro- 
politan Toronto  would  really  expect  should 
happen,  regardless  of  their  feelings  on  this 
matter.  To  think  that  people  should  be 
evicted  on  that  particular  date,  I  think,  is 
ludicrous.  Anyway,  one  can  even  argue  on 
humanitarian  grounds  that  something  should 
be  done  to  make  sure  there  are  no  evictions 
at  this  particular  time. 

It  has  also  been  suggested  to  me  from 
time  to  time  that  we  are  meddling  in  an  area 
where  we  should  not  be  meddling.  I  would 
suggest  to  the  House  that  the  mass  eviction 
of  anywhere  from  250  to  500  people  in  any 
community  in  any  part  of  this  province 
would  necessitate  this  Legislature  somehow 
being  involved.  I  really  answer  that  charge 
that  is  made  to  us  by  saying  that  if  this  kind 
of  mass  eviction  were  to  occur  anywhere  in 
the  province,  I  am  sure  we  would  somehow 
be  involved  in  it. 

I  do  not  in  any  way  countenance  the  fact 
or  the  argument,  or  give  any  credence  to  the 
argument,  that  we  should  not  be  involved  in 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4305 


this,  because  I  think  we  are  involved  in 
many  areas,  particularly  when  the  whole 
resolution  of  this  problem  concerns  an  act 
of  this  Legislature  which  could  or  would 
have  to  be  amended.  Therefore,  of  necessity 
we  must  be  involved  in  the  problem  and,  in 
fact,  by  amendment  in  1956  we  started  the 
whole  trend  towards  having  the  island  as  a 
Metro  park,  so  we  were  involved  back  then 
and  We  are  legitimately  involved  now. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  government?  Or  Scar- 
borough? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  the  government.  The 
government  in  1956  amended  the  Munic- 
ipality of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act  at  the  re- 
quest of  Metro  and  the  city  of  Toronto  to 
change  the  ownership  of  the  island  from 
Toronto  to  Metro  for  the  purpose  of  creating 
a  park,  so  at  that  particular  time  the  Legis- 
lature was  involved  and  had  to  be  involved. 
That  section  is  the  one  that  is  in  there  and 
that  is  the  section  that  still  provides  that  the 
island  should  become  a  Metro  park.  The 
only  way  that  can  be  changed  is  by  us  chang- 
ing that  section. 

Since  it  is  an  act  of  this  Legislature,  we 
properly  are  involved.  That  is  why  I  really 
reject  the  idea  that  somehow  we  should  never 
be  involved  in  this  at  all,  because  we  were 
involved  and  we  probably  will  continue  to 
be  involved. 

I  do  not  want  to  take  any  more  time  on 
my  opening  statement,  other  than  to  say  that 
the  events  surrounding  this  are  well  known. 
What  we  have  here  today  is  a  simple  bill  to 
stay  the  execution  of  the  writs  until  next 
July,  which  will  allow  the  Swadron  commis- 
sion to  report  and  will  allow  all  of  us  to 
study  that  report.  It  is  hoped  that  out  of  that 
report  will  come  some  resolution  to  the 
problem. 

I  would  say  at  this  time  I  hope  that  all  who 
receive  the  report  will  read  it,  and  not  reject 
it  out  of  hand  without  reading  it.  I  hope  the 
members  of  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  coun- 
cil will  read  that  report  and  will  read  it  with 
an  open  mind  rather  than,  as  I  have  heard 
some  of  them  do  already,  predeciding  what  is 
going  to  be  in  there  and  prejudging  the  re- 
port. That  would  be  a  tragedy,  because  I 
think  Mr.  Swadron  is  taking  a  lot  of  time, 
based  on  the  evidence  presented  to  him,  to 
come  up  with  some  solutions  and  to  give 
some  historic  background  that  perhaps  has 
not  been  presented  before.  I  hope  that  report 
will  be  considered  on  its  merits  and  the 
only  way  it  can  be  considered  on  its  merits 
is  for  us  not  to  interfere  with  anybody  at  this 
time.  That  is  what  this  bill  does. 


I  might  also  say,  for  those  who  are  con- 
cerned that  it  might  somehow  cause  more 
legal  battles  concerning  the  writs,  that  the 
law  officers  of  the  crown  inform  us  it  is  not 
interfering  with  the  writs,  in  that  the  writs 
will  still  be  valid  after  July  1,  1981.  We  are 
not  setting  up  a  process  whereby  more  legal 
manoeuvres  can  occur  after  that.  It  is  merely 
stalling  the  execution  of  those  writs  for  the 
reasons  we  have  just  stated.  I  would  hope  it 
will  be  supported  by  all  members  of  this 
House. 

12  noon. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  minister  has 
been  guilty  of  a  certain  degree  of  brinkman- 
ship in  bringing  forward  this  bill.  It  has  been 
obvious  for  three  weeks  that  the  bill  would  be 
necessary,  and  here  it  is  before  the  House 
for  three  readings  on  the  very  day  before  the 
execution  of  the  writs.  I  know  the  minister 
has  had  a  certain  amount  of  difficulty,  per- 
haps with  his  own  colleagues,  in  this  con- 
nection because  I  think  it  has  been  made 
clear  in  public  statements  that  both  the 
Liberals  and  the  New  Democrats  not  only 
have  been  expecting  the  bill,  but  in  fact  have 
been  demanding  it. 

We  would  agree  with  the  statement,  if  not 
the  tone  of  the  minister's  comments,  that  it 
would  be  a  ridiculous  thing  indeed  if  the  is- 
land residents  were  dispossessed  in  the  middle 
of  November.  We  are  also  aware  that  this 
matter  has  gone  on  for  many  months— in  fact 
years— and  whether  we  like  it  or  not  the  final 
decision  of  what  is  going  to  happen  on  the 
island  is  going  to  be  made  in  this  House. 

I  sense  the  minister,  in  his  emphasis  on  the 
importance  of  the  Swadron  commission  and 
the  investigation  coming  under  the  direction 
of  Barry  Swadron,  has  made  his  own  decision 
and  that  is  that  he  will  do  whatever  the  com- 
missioner recommends.  He  is  advising  us  so 
sincerely— and  he  does  that  very  well— not  to 
prejudge  the  commissioner's  report,  but  I  sup- 
pose the  fate  of  the  island  community  has 
already  been  judged  by  almost  all  members 
of  this  House. 

We  have  listened  to  the  argument  put  for- 
ward by  the  member  for  St.  Andrew-St 
Patrick  (Mr.  Grossman)  in  a  most  impassioned 
way.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  has  convinced 
me  of  the  correctness  of  his  position.  I  do 
not  expect  to  see  the  House  or  the  govern- 
ment itself  move  in  a  way  to  allow  the  dis- 
possession of  the  present  residents  on  the 
island. 

I  visited  the  island  in  the  presence  of  many 
thousands  of  Torontonians  at  the  great  CHIN 
picnic.  It  is  always  representative  of  at  least 


4306 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


three  political  parties  and  a  couple  of  others 
that  are  not  really  there  except  in  spirit.  It 
is  always  a  great  event.  I  remember  even  as 
a  boy  going  to  Centre  Island,  riding  the 
merry-go-round  and  grabbing  the  brass  ring. 
That  is  something  all  of  us  have  heard  of, 
but  I  think  I  am  the  only  one  who  ever  did 
it.  It  was  the  last  piece  of  good  luck  I  ever 
had.  After  having  had  such  a  long  ride,  I 
think  I  was  then  promptly  sick,  but  that  is 
another  matter. 

I  do  believe,  however,  that  parks  on  the 
island  are  a  great  thing  and  necessary  for 
the  metropolitan  area.  I  do  believe  that  in 
the  areas  that  are  available  for  them,  the 
metropolitan  area  has  an  extensive  area  for 
recreation,  yacht  clubs  and1  other  facilities.  I 
think  it  is  a  marvellous  thing  for  the  benefit 
of  this  community,  something  that  would  lead 
me  to  think  even  more  highly  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto  as  a  place  to  live  than  I  do  now.  I 
most  sincerely  love  this  city. 

(I  do  not,  however,  feel  it  is  necessary  to 
kick  everybody  off  the  two  islands,  Ward's 
and  Algonquin.  If  the  Legislature  votes  to  do 
that  eventually,  I  will  be  very  surprised. 

The  minister  has  gone  to  some  lengths  in 
his  opening  remarks  to  fend  off  any  criticism 
of  interference  in  local  affairs,  indicating  it 
was  an  amendment  by  this  House  that  estab- 
lished the  concept  of  a  park  in  the  first  in- 
stance. I  suppose  we  are  all  very  sensitive 
about  this  intrusion  into  local  affairs  but,  in 
spite  of  that  sensitivity,  I  can  assure  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  final  decision  on  what  happens 
on  the  island  is  going  to  be  made  in  this 
House  and  not  elsewhere. 

I  know  the  minister  feels  he  has  a  special 
persuasive  power  in  dealing  with  the  chair- 
man of  Metropolitan  Toronto,  but  for  some 
reason  that  well-known  persuasiveness  is  not 
effective  with  the  present  chairman.  The 
chairman  is  adamant  that  the  decisions  of 
Metro  must  stand  and  any  interference  from 
outside  is  unwarranted  and  to  be  opposed  at 
all  costs.  He  was  even  prepared  to  instruct 
the  sheriff  to  go  forward  with  the  disposses- 
sion. 

I  presume  since  the  minister  was  criticized 
for  using  immoderate  language  with  regard 
to  the  sheriff— and  he  says  he  was  not  re- 
ferring to  the  sheriff  as  being  stupid  and 
inhumane— then  he  must  apply  that  criticism 
to  the  chairman  of  Metropolitan  Toronto.  I 
see  the  minister  shaking  his  head.  He  does 
not  want  to  call  anybody  stupid  and  in- 
humane. I  know  what  a  kind  man  the  minis- 
ter is  and  how  unflappable  he  is.  We  can 
only  assume  then  that  some  of  his  advisers 
have  put  these  adjectives  in  his  mind  and  in 


his  mouth  and  probably  he  has  discussed  this 
matter  with  them  already. 

I  suppose  a  person  in  politics  who,  like  the 
minister  is  upwardly  mobile,  must  be  very 
careful  indeed  as  to  what  sort  of  advice  he 
gets  from  those  people  who  are  thinking  only 
of  his  own  benefit.  They  want  to  be  helpful, 
but  sometimes  in  their  very  helpfulness  they 
can  be  injurious.  It  is  a  lesson  I  learned 
myself  far  too  late,  but  perhaps  the  minister 
with  his  well-known  moderation  and  good 
humour,  which  I  have  seen  break  down  only 
on  rare  occasions  and  then  perhaps  only  by 
misunderstanding,  still  has  time.  He  must  be 
careful  to  see  that  in  the  months  that  lie 
ahead  he  is  not  led  into  this  ridiculous  trap 
whereby  upwardly  mobile  politicians  fall  into 
the  hands  of  managers  who  can  do  nothing 
but  harm  them. 

I  could  embark  on  a  longer  treatise  on  this, 
but  I  know  the  minister  was  very  embar- 
rassed. In  using  the  words  "stupid"  and  "in- 
humane" he  certainly  got  our  attention,  but 
he  has  been  busy  ever  since  denying  they 
apply  to  anybody.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
said  they  applied  to  the  day,  that  it  was  a 
stupid  and  inhumane  day,  so  I  suppose  that 
is  all  right.  We  know  he  really  meant  the 
chairman  of  the  council  of  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto, because  he  is  the  person  who  has  been 
intransigent  in  this  matter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  have  been  looking 
for  some  answers  like  that.  I  need  some  an- 
swers to  teach  me  some  moderation. 

Mr.  Nixon:  You  have  ripped  off  the 
Treasury.  Why  don't  you  look  at  the  Min- 
istry of  Intergovernmental  Affairs?  There 
are  a  couple  of  good  plums  sitting  there 
who  are  looking  for  a  winner. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  accept  your  instruction 
to  proceed.  I  simply  say  it  is  unpalatable 
for  us  in  this  House  to  be  dealing  with 
matters  which,  by  our  previous  action,  we 
have  given  to  the  municipalities— the  lower- 
tier  municipalities  have  been  involved  to 
some  degree— especially  the  municipality  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto.  Now  that  we  do  not 
like  its  actions,  we  are  prepared  to  draw 
back  and  instruct  it  otherwise. 

I  am  glad  the  minister  has  abandoned  the 
concepts  of  Bill  5.  I  guess  it  was  a  week  or 
10  days  ago  when  there  was  a  mild  little 
flurry  from  the  minister,  once  again  con- 
siderably out  of  character.  He  got  up  and 
harangued  the  people  in  the  opposition  for 
their  bad  judgement  in  not  supporting  the 
principle  of  Bill  5.  If  Bill  5  comes  forward 
in  any  other  form,   even  as  a  recommenda- 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4307 


tion  from  Barry  Swadron,  it  will  not  be  sup- 
ported on  this  side  either. 

We  do  not  want  to  prejudge  what  Mr. 
Swadron  recommends,  but  if  his  recommen- 
dation is  to  take  each  property  as  the  owner 
or  occupant  moves  away  or  dies  and  have  it 
transferred  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto  to  be  torn  down,  which  is  the 
minister's  solution  to  this,  we  will  not  sup- 
port it  whether  it  comes  from  Swadron,  John 
Robarts  or  any  of  the  other  Tory  gurus  who 
are  going  to  be  involved  in  this  solution. 
The  Tories  can't  agree  among  themselves, 
either  on  the  front  bench  or  involving  the 
lesser  Tories  who  get  more  money  working 
in  unelected  capacities  in  the  Metro  govern- 
ment. 

We  really  cannot  help  the  members  oppo- 
site to  come  to  a  conclusion  among  them- 
selves. In  the  past  we  have  suggested  they 
retire  to  one  of  those  back  rooms  at  the 
Albany  Club  and  come  to  some  solution  that 
would  be,  I  should  not  say  saleable,  but 
acceptable,  and  they  have  failed  miserably. 

Bill  5  is  not  the  solution  now  and  it 
never  will  be.  I  hope  the  minister  is  listening 
to  me  as  he  peruses  that  piece  of  paper  so 
carefully,  because  I  hope  the  last  we  will 
hear  of  Bill  5  was  that  little  flurry  he  gave 
us  in  the  House  10  days  ago. 

This  bill  puts  the  whole  thing  on  ice 
until  next  July.  We  know  that  is  a  good 
date.  The  provincial  election  will  be  over 
and  the  new  government— it  may  be  a  new 
government  made  up  of  new  Tories,  al- 
though I  predict  and  expect  otherwise- 
can  look  at  it.  Certainly  we  feel  on  this 
side  that  the  island  community  should  be 
maintained,  and  if  it  requires  an  amendment 
to  the  Municipality  of  Metropolitan  Toronto 
Act,  so  be  it. 

Unpalatable  though  we  may  think  this 
is,  the  disposition  of  this  matter  lies  in  this 
House.  Even  in  July,  supposing  there  isn't 
an  election  and  we  are  here  in  our  same 
situation,  God  forbid,  it  will  once  again  be 
debated  here  and  the  government  of  the  day, 
finally,  when  pushed  to  extremes— if  it  is 
Tory— will  move  another  bill  that  will  post- 
pone it  again. 

12:10  p.m. 

I  sincerely  hope  the  Swadron  report  will 
be  a  moderate  report.  I  presume  it  will  be 
moderate,  knowing  Mr.  Swadron's  reputation, 
but  will  allow  for  a  continuation  of  the 
island  community.  I  have  been  consistent  in 
my  support  of  that  concept. 

That  was  why,  when  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  made  a  strong  statement 


in  his  more  callow  years  about  playing  hard- 
ball in  this  connection— being  fresh  from 
saving  Doctors  Hospital  from  extermination 
—and  undertook  to  sway  the  views  of  cabinet 
in  support  of  the  island  community,  frankly, 
I  admired  what  he  did.  I  thought  probably 
the  salvation  of  the  Doctors  Hospital  was 
sort  of  an  inside  drop  ball,  but  this  one 
seems  really  to  be  a  battle. 

The  fact  that  this  bill  is  so  late  in  coming 
forward  means  the  minister  and  the  admin- 
istration of  Ontario  have  had  difficulties  we 
do  not  understand.  Presumably  they  have 
been  able  to  walk  over  the  chairman  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto  because  he  likes  his 
job.  He  may  have  even  threatened  not  to  run 
for  the  Legislature,  or  to  run  for  the  Liberals 
or  something  like  that,  unless  the  government 
did  what  he  wanted,  but  the  minister  has 
even  been  able  to  overcome  threats  like  that. 

I  feel  the  problems  the  minister  has  may 
be  in  cabinet  council  or  with  caucus  at 
large.  Frankly,  I  resent  a  little  bit  the  way 
he  has  left  the  House  hanging  on  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  bill.  He  was  critical  of  our  atti- 
tude on  Bill  5,  but  he  had  no  reasonable 
alternative  until  Bill  181,  a  Band- Aid 
measure,  was  presented  to  us  today  for  three 
readings  and  royal  assent  all  at  once. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  We  had  one  reading 
yesterday. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Two  readings  and  royal  assent 
or,  let  us  say,  three  references  in  this 
chamber.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  supporting 
it  and  I  express  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
view  that  in  the  long  run  the  chamber  will 
vote  to  maintain  the  island  community. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to 
fondly  give  the  speech  I  was  going  to  give 
every  time  the  other  bill  kept  coming  up, 
but  I  am  not  going  to  give  it  because  it  was 
at  least  an  hour  and  a  half  in  length  and 
gave  the  full  history  of  the  island. 

I  think  this  Bill  181  should  be  described 
as  the  better-late-than-never  bill.  I  come  at 
it  with  mixed  emotions  as  much  as  did  the 
member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  who  just 
spoke.  I  am  pleased  to  see  it  has  come 
through.  Obviously  we  are  in  favour  of  it 
and  obviously  we  are  going  to  support  it, 
because  it  never  needed  to  be  done  in  the 
way  it  has  been  done.  There  is  a  certain 
amount  of  anger  in  me  that  it  has  come  up 
in  the  way  it  has. 

It  is  brinkmanship,  waiting  until  the  future 
of  the  island  is  hanging  over  the  cliff  and 
then  the  government  seems  to  pluck  it  out 
and  save  it  in  the  Perils  of  Pauline  style 
with  a  train  coming  down  the  track.  In  point 


4308 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  fact,  this  government  has  been  an  accom- 
plice in  tying  the  islanders  down  on  that 
track,  and  it  controls  the  purse  strings  of  the 
engineer  who  is  bringing  the  train  down  the 
track. 

The  government  had  the  ability  to  stop 
this  thing  long  ago  and  did  not  have  to  try 
to  build  an  unnatural  and  unfair  suspense 
about  the  fate  of  these  islanders  as  has  been 
done.  It  is  a  singular  sign  of  the  failure  of 
power  on  those  front  benches  of  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  and  the  Minister  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs  that  they  had  all 
this  problem  in  getting  this  thing  together 
and  getting  it  before  us  at  this  date.  The 
problems  in  the  government  caucus  must  be 
extreme,  I  would  say. 

I  would  have  thought  it  would  have  been 
far  better  from  the  beginning  to  have  come 
forward  with  a  bill  that  was  not  Bill  5  after 
the  minister  saw  it  was  unacceptable  to  us. 
Many  months  ago,  when  he  set  up  the 
Swadron  commission,  it  would  have  been 
better  to  have  done  that  with  an  act,  and  to 
have  said  in  that  act  he  was  setting  up  this 
commission  which  would  report  back  to  this 
House  because  we  are  involved  and  it  is  our 
responsibility.  We  would  then  debate  it  and 
make  a  decision  on  it.  That  would  have  been 
far  better  than  the  kind  of  approach  the 
minister  has  taken  to  this  date. 

I  am  not  going  to  go  into  the  reasons  we 
support  the  islanders.  They  have  laid  out 
that  case  well  and  we  have  laid  out  that  case 
well;  there  is  no  need  to  do  that  again.  I  want 
to  raise  two  items.  One  is  that  anybody  in 
this  Legislature  who  would  not  say  we  have 
an  obligation  to  protect  that  community  with 
its  history,  a  community  with  roots,  a  com- 
munity that  does  not  need  to  be  taken  over 
for  park  land,  is  crazy  and  is  out  of  step 
with  the  people  of  Metropolitan  Toronto. 
The  other  is  that  those  people  who  claim 
they  cannot  interfere  in  municipal  business 
because  Metro  council  brought  forward  the 
suggestion  are  also  working  on  a  fallacious 
interpretation. 

Surely  what  we  have  is  a  community  of 
650,000— or  whatever  the  city  of  Toronto  is 
now— very  strongly  wanting  to  preserve  one 
of  its  communities,  and,  in  my  view,  an  in- 
directly elected,  unaccountable  council  over- 
riding those  wishes  and  being  supported  by 
this  government.  If  this  is  not  enough  reason 
for  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
to  change  the  format  of  election  of  Metro 
council,  I  do  not  know  what  is. 


I  appeared  before  the  good  Tory  lawyer, 
Mr.  Swadron;  I  do  not  know  whether  any  of 
the  rest  of  the  members  did.  I  did  not  see  too 
many  names  I  recognized  on  the  list  of  people 
who  had  appeared.  I  was  pleased  with  the 
hearing  he  gave  me.  I  am  convinced  the  re- 
port he  is  going  to  come  forward  with  is  go- 
ing to  have  some  interesting  recommendations 
we  should  all  look  at.  I  would  like  to  have  a 
commitment  from  the  minister  today,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  I  am  going  to  support  un- 
equivocally what  he  is  bringing  forward, 
that  we  will  have  a  chance  to  discuss  this  in 
the  Legislature  when  it  comes  forward. 

I  would  like  to  hear  the  minister,  when  he 
wraps  up,  indicate  whether  we  are  going  to 
have  a  chance  to  talk  about  Swadron  here  in 
the  Legislature,  because  I  feel  we  should.  We 
are  in  the  ball  game;  it  is  in  our  court.  He 
has  taken  that  on  today,  he  has  accepted  that 
responsibility;  now  let  him  bring  in  the 
Legislature  to  discuss  the  results. 

I  would  just  say  that  the  timing  of  the  bill, 
the  date  for  the  end  of  June,  was  an  inter- 
esting one.  It  seems  to  tie  into  the  budget 
timetable  of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman).  I  guess  we  know 
that  ties  in  not  just  with  good  weather  and 
the  humanity  of  not  evicting  the  people  at 
this  point,  but  also  with  the  timing  of  a 
prospective  election.  No  doubt  one  of  the 
things  going  on  in  the  minds  of  caucus  mem- 
bers over  there  is  that,  by  passing  this  bill, 
the  minister  is  not  going  to  have  to  deal  with 
the  solution  to  the  Swadron  suggestions, 
when  they  come  forward,  until  after  an  elec- 
tion. 

I  am  giving  the  minister  notice  we  are  go- 
ing to  expect  him  to  come  through  with  his 
recommendations  to  do  with  Swadron  well 
before  an  election.  We  will  give  the  minister 
a  month  or  month  and  a  half  to  look  over 
Swadron.  But  by  goodness,  in  January, 
February  or  whenever  this  House  comes  back 
—immediately  this  House  comes  back— we 
want  the  minister's  recommendations  on  what 
is  going  to  happen  to  the  islanders.  Do  not 
leave  it  until  June  30;  do  not  play  with  those 
people  again. 

The  minister  has  given  himself  enough 
time  to  come  through  with  his  recommenda- 
tions, bring  them  before  this  House,  have  us 
debate  them  and  pass  through  a  long-term 
solution  for  those  people.  I  place  squarely  on 
the  shoulders  of  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  the  mess  we  are  in 
now  in  terms  of  passing  this  thing  in  one 
day. 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4309 


I  believe  his  speech  10  days  ago,  or  when- 
ever it  was,  when  he  talked  about  there  be- 
ing three  options,  was  a  false  political  speech 
which  used  these  people  unfairly.  When  one 
speaks  of  inhumanity,  I  feel  that  was  inherent 
in  what  he  was  doing.  Those  first  two  options 
were  not  options.  Metro  could  not  move. 
There  was  not  going  to  be  another  Metro 
council  meeting.  The  Metro  chairman  could 
not  act  unilaterally  and  the  minister  knew 
that. 

Option  one  had  no  relevance  at  all  and  yet 
he  threw  it  out  again  as  one  of  the  possibili- 
ties and  played  games  with  it.  Then  the 
minister  came  back  with  Bill  5.  He  knew  it 
was  not  acceptable  to  the  opposition  here; 
he  knew  it  was  not  acceptable  to  the  islanders. 
It  was  not  even  acceptable  to  Robert  Bundy 
of  Metro  Parks  and  Property  who  made  a 
presentation  to  the  Swadron  commission  say- 
ing that  any  kind  of  attrition  or  slow  death 
bill  was  unacceptable.  The  minister  knew  that 
was  not  an  option,  so  why  did  he  play  politics 
with  it  and  then  get  the  rednecks  in  his 
caucus,  whom  he  was  having  trouble  con- 
trolling, inflamed?  That  is  what  happened; 
that  is  why  they  got  their  backs  up  and  why 
he  had  trouble  getting  this  thing  through.  It 
was  totally  unnecessary  to  mess  around  with 
them  in  that  way. 

I  want  the  minister  to  tell  us  today 
whether  he  is  going  to  ask  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  to  look  into  the 
sheriff's  office  in  terms  of  what  it  tried  to 
do  with  Toronto  Hydro  and  Consumers' 
Gas.  I  understand  the  sheriff's  office  had  to 
act  in  sending  out  the  eviction  notices,  which 
it  had  obviously  sent  out  before,  but  did 
it  have  to  go  to  Toronto  Hydro  and  say: 
"We  want  you  to  participate  with  us.  We 
want  you  to  drive  your  truck  in  behind1  us 
and  as  we  close  down  the  house  we  are 
going  to  ask  you  to  shut  the  hydro  off.  Then 
we  will  have  the  parks  truck  in  right  after 
that  and  they  will  hammer  the  place  up  and 
it  will  be  closed"?  Surely  that  was  going 
further  than  the  sheriff's  office  had  to  go. 
Asking  for  confidential  lists  of  people  who 
were  receiving  services  from  Consumers' 
Gas  and  Toronto  Hydro  was  unnecessary. 
12:20  p.m. 

I  think  the  Attorney  General  should  look 
into  that  as  it  was  a  totally  unnecessary 
kind  of  provocative  act  by  the  sheriff's 
office.  If  the  sheriff's  office  is  under  the 
control  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General,  I  see  no  reason  why  he  could  not 
have  at  least  slapped  their  wrists  for  that 
kind  of  action. 


There  are  a  few  things  I  would  like  to 
say  to  the  minister  before  I  can  support 
the  bill.  I  want  to  assure  him  we  will  not 
support  Bill  5  if  it  comes  back,  and  I  don't 
expect  it  will  come  back.  I  expect  the 
Swadron  commission  report  to  contain  a 
number  of  items  the  islanders  have  already 
asked  for.  I  expect  him  to  say  the  land 
should  be  left  in  public  ownership.  I  expect 
him  to  say  something  about  a  25-year  lease, 
much  as  they  have  given  to  the  yacht  club 
on  the  islands.  I  will  be  very  surprised  if  he 
does  not  come  through  with  a  review  of  that. 
I  do  not  doubt  that  he  will  say  those  build- 
ings have  to  be  raised  to  a  certain  standard. 
That  is  totally  acceptable  to  the  islanders 
and  totally  acceptable  to  any  rational  person 
on  this  side  of  the  House  as  well,  and  there 
are  many  of  us. 

The  final  item  on  the  islanders'  position 
which  I  spoke  about  when  I  spoke  with 
Swadron  is  that  the  homes  and  leases 
should  be  done  on  a  nonprofit  basis.  If  it 
can  be  done  on  a  co-operative  basis,  even 
better.  I  think  you  are  going  to  see  sugges- 
tions like  that  come  through  from  Swadron. 
An  attrition  type  of  bill  is  not  going  to  be 
acceptable  to  us  at  all. 

I  also  want  to  be  sure  we  have  a  debate 
in  the  House  on  the  Swadron  commission 
report  and  I  want  assurance  from  the  min- 
ister that  he  is  not  going  to  wait  until  June 
30  to  bring  forward  a  solution  to  the  island 
problems  for  the  long  term.  I  would  like  to 
hear  from  the  minister  on  those  three  things 
before  the  debate  is  concluded.  Thank  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  going  to  take  the  time  of  the  House  to 
repeat  the  kinds  of  messages  I  have  given  in 
this  House  previously,  nor  to  repeat  the 
message  I  delivered  in  my  presentation  to 
the  Swadron  commission.  Suffice  to  say  some- 
thing members  opposite  want  to  forget,  I 
am  gratified  that  all  members  of  this  House 
are  supportive  of  the  proposition  that  the 
islands  matter  should  be  referred  to  an  im- 
partial, careful  study  which  is  being  con- 
ducted by  Mr.  Swadron.  Like  other  members 
who  have  spoken,  I  am  quite  satisfied  the 
Swadron  commission  is  being  conducted  in 
that  kind  of  sensible  and  impartial  fashion 
and  I  look  forward  to  a  balanced  recom- 
mendation flowing  from  it. 

The  kind  of  balanced  recommendation  I 
think  anyone  looking  at  it  objectively  will 
present  is  well  known  to  members  of  this 
House  because  my  position  has  been  as 
clear  and  as  historical  as  anyone  else  in  the 
assembly  can  claim.  I  want  to  make  the  point 


4310 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  my  colleagues  who  have  joined  in  our 
attempts  to  prevent  too  expeditious  and  too 
hasty  action  being  taken  on  this  matter  are 
all  concerned  about  being  sure  there  is  fair- 
ness adopted  in  whatever  stance  we  take. 

It  is  a  little  harder  to  deal  with  when  we 
have  two  councils  with  some  claim  to  au- 
thority dramatically  disagreeing  on  what 
should  happen  there.  My  goal  has  always 
been  to  accomplish  one  simple  thing.  I  can- 
not pretend  it  is  not  a  goal  to  retain  a  com- 
munity there.  It  is  a  goal  I  am  proud  of  and 
one  for  which  I  have  always  fought. 

Secondly,  I  have  always  believed  an  im- 
partial, fair  hearing,  devoid  of  the  kind  of 
political  posturing  that  frankly  city  council 
has  seen  and  frankly  Metro  council  has  seen 
and  frankly  this  assembly  has  seen,  is  what 
is  necessary  to  get  a  sensible  resolution  to  the 
matter.  I  think  that  is  what  we  are  going  to 
see  coming  out  of  the  Swadron  commission 
and  to  that  end  I  take  some  pride  in  the  fact 
that  as  a  member  for  a  particular  and  unique 
community  I  am  able  to  stand  here  as  part 
of  a  government  that  has  taken  steps  to  en- 
sure a  fair  hearing  of  those  issues. 

I  must  be  honest  and  say  that  I  take  some 
personal  pride  in  the  fact  I  have  carried  this 
fight  forward  on  behalf  of  a  particular  neigh- 
bourhood and  community  in  my  riding  that 
has  never  voted  for  me  nor,  as  I  indicated 
to  the  Swadron  commission,  do  I  expect  ever 
will  vote  for  me.  Those  who  attest  political 
motives  to  me  should  have  a  look  at  the  re- 
sults of  the  polls  over  on  the  islands.  That 
is  not  going  to  change,  regardless  of  the  out- 
come of  the  Swadron  commission,  though  I 
certainly  wish  it  would.  It  happens  to  be 
something  I  believe  in  in  terms  of  the  prin- 
ciple. 

I  am  also,  as  one  of  those  charged  with 
executive  duties  in  the  government  of  On- 
tario, concerned  about  and  have  to  be  aware 
of  the  responsibilities  we  bear  to  the  councils 
involved  and  those  who  have  been  given 
certain  responsibilities  by  us  to  manage  over 
the  past  20  or  25  years.  It  is  a  little  harder  to 
work  out  the  solutions  in  government  and  a 
little  easier  to  posture  when  one  is  not.  It  is 
a  little  harder  to  work  out  a  solution  and 
fight  for  a  principle  when  those  who  will 
benefit  from  the  principle  I  am  fighting  for 
in  this  case  will  continue  to  provide  no  sup- 
port and,  in  fact,  vote  against  me. 

None  the  less,  I  take  some  pride,  as  I 
guess  I  have  in  other  matters  in  my  riding 
that  I  have  fought  for,  in  the  fact  that  we  are 
able  to  stand  here  today  and  see  the  islanders 
still  there  and  in  place  two  years  after  the 


courts  have  ruled  that  the  writs  are  valid  and 
that  they  could  be  evicted. 

With  those  short  remarks,  I  am  hoping  the 
House  will  join  us  in  at  least  giving  the 
Swadron  commission  the  opportunity  to  com- 
plete its  hearings  and  all  of  us  a  chance  to 
read  that  impartial  and  objective  analysis  and 
act  upon  it.  I  am  pleased  to  join  our  House 
leader  and  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs  in  supporting  this  legislation. 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  speak 
just  briefly  to  this  particular  bill  and  indicate 
that  we  are  going  to  support  the  bill,  as  our 
House  leader  indicated  earlier. 

Obviously,  it  is  long  overdue  and  there  was 
no  need  to  have  to  wait  until  the  eleventh 
hour  to  bring  in  this  bill  to  stay  the  various 
writs.  It  is  shown  or  seen  as  a  death-bed 
repentance  on  behalf  of  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  who  has  in  the  final 
hours  been  able  to  convince  some  of  his  col- 
leagues in  the  cabinet  that  they  should  at 
least  do  something  before  those  writs  are 
issued  on  Monday. 

I  think  it  is  quite  clear  to  everyone  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto,  if  not  in  Ontario,  that 
there  is  overwhelming  support  for  the  com- 
munity to  be  retained  on  the  islands.  A  sur- 
vey done  some  short  time  ago  by  some  very 
able  people  from  Ryerson  Polytechnical  In- 
stitute, called  Attitude  Of  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto Residents  Towards  the  Toronto  Island 
Community,  reveals  that  about  78  per  cent  of 
Metro  residents  support  the  retention  of  the 
island  community.  Only  six  per  cent  of  Metro 
residents  feel  the  community  should  be  re- 
moved. 

In  other  words,  there  are  a  number  of 
people  there  who  do  not  have  any  strong 
opinion  on  it,  but  an  overwhelming  support, 
78  per  cent  as  shown  in  that  survey,  indi- 
cates that  it  wants  to  retain  the  island  com- 
munity as  it  is  at  present.  They  do  not  want 
this  inch-by-inch  decaying  or  inch-by-inch 
taking  down  of  that  particular  community,  as 
was  recommended  in  Bill  5,  which  obviously 
the  government  will  have  to  withdraw  once 
the  Swadron  report  is  introduced  in  the  Legis- 
lature. 

I  want  to  comment  briefly  on  the  meddling 
that  this  Legislature  is  accused  of  by  inter- 
fering with  the  island  community.  As  we 
know,  when  various  organizations  or  various 
groups  or  municipalities  get  grants  from  the 
province  they  do  not  accuse  the  province  of 
meddling  in  their  affairs.  They  are  always 
anxious  to  have  those  particular  grants  and 
do  not  feel  it  is  meddling  when  they  accept 
money  from   the  provincial   government  for 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4311 


various  purposes.  However,  the  government  is 
sometimes  accused  of  meddling  in  those 
affairs  when  it  passes  legislation  that  what- 
ever that  organization  is  does  not  agree  with. 
It  reminds  me  of  the  case  where  I  met 
with  a  number  of  people.  I  suppose  they 
could  be  classified  as  small-c  conservatives. 
They  said:  "Look,  we  do  not  want  any  more 
government  regulations.  We  have  too  much 
government  now  and  we  do  not  want  any 
more  government."  The  second  item  of  that 
agenda  was,  "Yes,  we  need  higher  tariffs  to 
protect  our  manufacturing  goods."  They  did 
not  want  any  more  government,  yet  they 
wanted  more  government  interference  in  the 
protection  of  manufactured  goods  in  the 
province  and  the  country.  It  depends  on 
which  side  of  the  issue  one  is  on  and  what 
serves  one's  purposes  at  the  time. 

12:30  p.m. 

I  think  the  province  is  on  the  right  track 
by  bringing  in  Bill  181  to  stay  the  various 
writs.  It  would  be  my  hope,  and  I  am  sure 
the  hope  of  all  members  of  this  Legislature, 
that  when  the  Swadron  report  does  come  in 
it  is  going  to  recommend  the  continuation  of 
that  community  to  give  them  a  long  lease  on 
life. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wanted  to 
participate  in  this  debate  because  the  brink- 
manship of  the  government  has  brought  us 
to  a  kind  of  latter-day  Perils  of  Pauline  four 
days  prior  to  the  eviction  being  exercised  by 
the  writs  of  possession.  That  is  far  too  close. 
I  do  not  like  that  kind  of  brinkmanship  which 
has  characterized  the  government's  handling 
of  the  island  issue  for  far  too  long.  None  the 
less,  we  welcome  the  fact  that  the  govern- 
ment has  agreed  to  have  a  stay  of  execution 
by  means  of  this  legislation  until  the  Swadron 
report  can  be  published  and,  I  hope,  debated 
in  the  Legislature  and  action  taken. 

I  hope  very  much,  as  my  colleague  from 
Scarborough  West  has  already  indicated,  the 
action  that  will  be  taken  by  the  government 
will  be  public  and  will  be  in  place  prior  to 
the  election  taking  place— if  it  takes  place  in 
the  spring,  as  now  seems  likely.  I  do  not  think 
this  should  be  used  as  a  political  football  any 
more.  The  future  of  the  island  community 
should  be  guaranteed.  Whatever  workable 
kinds  of  solutions  are  proposed  by  the 
Swadron  report,  or  can  be  developed  on  the 
basis  of  it,  should  be  in  place.  We  should  no 
longer  have  empty  promises  from  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman),  and  we  should  no  longer  have 
politicians  having  to  fight  over  that  issue. 


One  reason  I  say  that  is  that  New 
Democrats  would  be  fighting  for  a  com- 
munity like  the  island  anywhere  in  the 
province.  We  have  shown  that  by  the  kind 
of  actions  we  have  taken  in  the  past  with 
respect  to  other  communities  as  well.  Whether 
it  is  the  miners  up  in  Atikokan,  the  people 
affected  by  the  closing  of  the  Moose  Mountain 
mine  in  Capreol,  the  auto  workers  in  Windsor, 
the  people  in  Mechanicsville  and  Centre- 
town  in  my  riding  of  Ottawa  Centre,  or  the 
workers  in  small  bush  communities  who 
worked  in  the  woods  for  Boise  Cascade  until 
they  were  affected  by  that  company's  unfair 
labour  practices,  we  have  fought  for  people 
across  the  province  and  we  are  fighting  for 
people  on  the  island  as  well. 

The  second  thing  is  that  the  island  is  a 
symbolic  issue  about  the  kind  of  communities 
we  are  going  to  have,  not  just  in  Toronto  but 
everywhere  across  the  province.  I  speak  as  a 
former  islander.  Some  people  know  that  in 
1973  and  1974  I  brought  my  family  down 
here  and  we  lived  on  Toronto  Island  for  a 
year.  It  was  one  of  the  happiest  years  we 
have  spent  as  a  family  in  my  entire  married 
life.  It  was  and  is  a  community  that  is  warm, 
friendly,  co-operative  and  outgoing,  a  com- 
munity that  believes  in  self-help,  a  community 
that  has  demonstrated  by  the  determination 
and  doggedness  of  their  fight  for  survival  the 
kinds  of  resources  there  are  in  a  small  group 
of  people  when  they  have  created  that  kind 
of  community  entity. 

I  asked  myself,  is  that  not  the  kind  of  com- 
munity life  I  would  like  to  have  here,  living 
in  Toronto  or  in  my  home  in  Ottawa?  Is  that 
not  the  kind  of  life  we  all  look  for?  Do  we 
not  all  have  a  bit  of  a  hankering  for  the 
village  and  small-town  life  that  some  of  us 
experienced  as  youngsters  and  perhaps  do  not 
have  right  now?  I'm  thinking  of  places  where 
there  was  an  intimate  relationship,  where  you 
knew  the  person  who  ran  the  shop  or  where 
your  great-aunt  lived  down  the  street  or  where 
you  were  involved  with  other  people  in  that 
community.  Is  this  not  what  planners  have 
been  getting  at  for  the  last  35  years— the 
creation  of  urban  villages  where  people  would 
be  able  to  interrelate  on  a  face-to-face  basis 
and  not  just  be  faceless  and  nameless  blobs 
who  pass  like  ships  in  the  night? 

Is  not  the  existence  of  the  island  com- 
munity—perhaps this  is  where  the  symbolism 
comes  in— kind  of  an  affront  to  those  forces  in 
our  society  which  support  the  Conservative 
Party,  those  forces  in  business  and  commerce 
which  would  like  everybody  to  be  atomized, 
to  be  living  in  a  little  box,  in  a  little  shell,  in 


4312 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


a  little  apartment,  to  have  no  interrelationship 
with  people  up  and  down  the  hall  or  the 
street  or  around  the  corner,  to  have  no  inter- 
relationship with  their  fellow  workers  on  the 
job,  and  therefore  to  be  powerless  against  the 
forces  of  big  business,  of  multinational  cor- 
porations, against  the  forces  of  advertising 
and  other  people  who  try  to  make  everything 
in  human  life  something  where  you  consume, 
you  buy,  buy,  buy  and  you  work,  work,  work, 
rather  than  ever  having  a  community  life 
where  you  can  simply  enjoy,  savour  and  take 
pleasure  in  the  growth  of  children,  as  I  still 
do  in  the  case  of  the  young  children  who 
were  born  five  and  six  years  ago  when  I  lived 
on  Toronto  Island,  and  take  pleasure  in  con- 
tact with  people  of  different  generations,  as 
people  do  on  the  island  where  people  from 
eight  months  to  80  years  live  side  by  side  and 
interrelate  together? 

Is  a  community  like  the  island  not  worth 
preserving  as  well,  when  we  consider  that  if 
Hydro  were  intending  to  put  a  dam  in 
Ontario  and  the  Friends  of  the  Earth  pointed 
out  that  the  dam  was  going  to  flood  a  unique 
ecological  area  with  some  unique  flora  or 
fauna  that  were  not  duplicated  elsewhere  in 
the  province,  the  chances  are  everybody's 
hearts  would  go  out  and  we  would  say,  "No, 
that  has  got  to  be  preserved;  dt>  the  dam  in  a 
different  way"? 

When  we  have  a  unique  piece  of  human 
ecology,  a  community  like  no  other  com- 
munity in  all  of  Canada  and  probably  like  no 
other  community  in  all  of  North  America,  and 
when  Conservatives  like  Paul  Godfrey  and  his 
buddies  on  Metro  council  come  along  and 
ruthlessly  move  to  stamp  that  out,  then  I 
think  something  unique  like  that  should  be 
preserved. 

At  a  time  when  we  are  increasingly  con- 
fronting the  problems  of  the  energy  crisis, 
should  we  not  have  some  lessons  to  learn 
from  a  community  that  has  no  cars  and  sur- 
vives without  them?  Should  we  not  have 
some  lessons  to  learn  from  a  community 
where  people  live  cheek  by  jowl  on  lots  40 
or  50  feet  by  40  or  50  feet  at  a  density  that 
is  almost  unheard  of  in  most  of  our  urbanized 
areas  with  low-rise  housing,  and  yet  manage 
to  survive  as  well  as  the  islanders  do?  Are 
there  not  a  lot  of  lessons  there? 

I  am  glad  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs  agrees  with  me,  that  his  colleagues  in 
the  Conservative  caucus  have  been  brought  to 
agree  with  him  as  well,  and  that  this  par- 
ticular bill  is  now  in  place.  It  is  still  only 
temporary  and  we  need  a  long-term  solution. 
I  am  very  concerned  over  the  fact  that  this 


whole  episode  would  not  have  had  to  occur 
if,  on  the  one  hand,  we  had  not  had  the 
machinations  of  Paul  Godfrey  and  his  friends 
and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  had  not  had  a 
structure  of  two-tier  government  in  Metro- 
politan Toronto  which  so  inadequately 
responds  to  the  very  clear,  determined  and 
declared  will,  not  just  of  the  people  of 
Toronto,  but  of  the  vast  majority  of  people  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto  as  well. 

This  government  has  delayed1  for  so  long 
on  the  restructuring  of  Metro  government 
that  it  has  helped  to  create  the  problem.  The 
two- tier  structure  where  Metro  had  control 
over  the  parks  was  an  inadequate  one  when 
it  was  the  people  of  Toronto,  first  and  fore- 
most, who  wanted  to  preserve  the  island 
community.  If  Paul  Godfrey  had  to  be 
elected  somewhere  within  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto to  qualify  for  nomination  to  the  post 
of  Metro  chairman,  then  the  islanders  and 
the  people  who  feel  with  them  would  have 
been  able  to  go  out  and  talk  face  to  face  to 
the  constituents  of  Paul  Godfrey  and  seek 
their  support.  I  predict  that,  if  the  munic- 
ipality of  Metropolitan  Toronto  six  or  eight 
years  ago  had  had  a  chairman  who  was  an 
elected  official  and  not  just  an  appointed 
official,  we  would  not  have  had  this  island 
problem  we  have  today. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:   That  is  total  nonsense. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  not  total  nonsense.  The 
member  for  Wilson  Heights  says  it  is  total 
nonsense.  He  should  know  perfectly  well  that, 
if  Paul  Godfrey  had  come  under  scrutiny  of 
the  people  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  in  any 
corner  of  this  area,  the  island  matter  would 
not  have  continued  to  be  what  amounted  to 
a  vendetta  against  the  islanders.  I  say  as 
well  that,  if  Paul  Godfrey  and  his  Conserva- 
tive friends  had  any  commitment  to  pre- 
serving communities  the  way  we  have  in 
the  New  Democratic  Party,  this  would  not 
have  been  an  issue  and  a  long-term  solution 
to  the  island  matter  would  have  been  found 
long  before  now. 

What  Godfrey  and  his  friends  seem  to  be 
saying  is  that  because  the  decision  was  made 
back  in  the  1950s  we  have  to  continue  with 
blinkers  as  though  nothing  has  changed  and 
as  though  people's  perceptions  of  how  com- 
munities should  exist  and  how  the  city 
should  exist  have  not  changed  at  all. 

12:40  p.m. 

We  have  thrown  out  the  idea  of  block- 
busting. We  have  thrown  out  the  idea  of 
massive  skyscrapers  to  house  everybody  in 
Metropolitan   Toronto,    Ottawa   or   our   other 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4313 


cities.  We  have  changed  our  views  about  the 
way  a  community  like  that  on  the  islands 
could  interrelate  when  it  is  in  a  park-like 
setting.  We  have  grown  to  appreciate  that, 
if  it  were  not  for  the  islanders,  the  Toronto 
Island  would  probably  be  closed  to  the  pub- 
lic for  six,  seven  or  even  eight  months  of  the 
year  and  would  be  totally  inaccessible.  That 
would  be  done  by  Paul  Godfrey  in  the  name 
of  economy  or  something  like  that. 

I  want  to  close  by  reiterating  what  my  col- 
league from  Scarborough  West  has  said. 
When  the  Swadron  report  comes  down,  it 
must  be  available  for  debate  in  this  House. 
There  must  be  a  commitment  from  the  gov- 
ernment to  consult  with  the  islanders,  the 
city,  Metro  and  other  interested  parties. 
There  must  be  a  commitment  to  have  a 
resolution  that  will  ensure  the  long-term 
survival  of  the  island  community  and  to  have 
that  resolution  in  place  before  we  go  into  a 
provincial  election  campaign. 

If  we  do  not  have  it,  we  will  know  this 
bill  was  just  another  in  a  series  of  sham 
actions  by  this  government  and  was  not 
really  dedicated  to  protecting  the  island 
community.  It  will  be  an  election  issue.  I 
pray  to  God  the  government  will  accept  that 
it  should  not  be  an  election  issue  and  that 
the  islanders'  future  should  be  sorted  out  and 
guaranteed  before  the  election  campaign 
comes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  to  con- 
clude this  debate  quickly,  there  is  no  sham 
intended,  nor  can  that  charge  be  made 
against  this  piece  of  legislation.  I  outlined 
exactly  why  it  is  being  introduced. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Nor  against  the  minister;  I 
quite  acknowledge  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  All  right.  The  Swadron 
report  will  be  brought  in  and  discussed.  We 
will  have  to  decide  how  it  will  be  discussed 
when  we  have  the  report.  It  is  not  normal 
for  this  House  to  debate  reports  made  by 
royal  commissions  except  when,  on  various 
occasions,  we  put  it  on  the  Order  Paper  and 
call  it  for  discussion.  I  think  we  should  wait 
and  see  the  report  before  deciding  if  that  is 
the  vehicle  We  want  to  take.  If  it  is  neces- 
sary, it  can  be  discussed,  but  I  think  we 
should  wait  and  see  the  report.  Of  course, 
this  House  will  have  ample  opportunity  to 
discuss  the  report  in  the  estimates  of  the 
Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  as  it 
always  discusses  many  things. 

The  kinds  of  remarks  that  were  attributed 
to  the  three  options  I  put  forward  a  few 
weeks  ago,  remarks  that  these  were  strictly  a 


political  smokescreen  et  cetera,  I  feel  were 
completely  unfounded.  All  the  options  have 
within  them  a  degree  of  achievability  and 
they  cannot  be  ruled  out  of  hand  immedi- 
ately. The  suggestion  that  they  were  strictly 
a  political  smokescreen  should  not  have  been 
put  forward.  It  is  not  a  viable  thing. 

Bill  5  is  still  a  piece  of  legislation  that  is 
supported  by  a  number  of  people. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  The  islanders  don't 
support  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  New  Democratic 
Party  and  the  Liberal  Party  do  not  support 
it.  Some  of  the  islanders  do  not  support  it; 
some  do.  As  I  recall,  the  Toronto  Star  sug- 
gests that  it  is  the  solution  to  the  island 
situation.  That  is  one  group  of  people— I  will 
still  use  the  term  "group"— who  feel  that  is 
an  option.  What  I  recall  saying  then  was 
that  if  the  House  wished  to  pass  that  bill  it 
would  be  one  way  of  stopping  the  writs  from 
being  served  immediately. 

It  was  also  within  the  power  of  the  chair- 
man of  Metropolitan  Toronto  to  call  Metro 
council  together  if  he  wished,  or  if  a  num- 
ber of  people  on  Metro  council  wished,  and 
to  ask  that  the  writs  not  be  served.  It  can- 
not be  said  that  was  a  frivolous  suggestion. 

The  third  suggestion  is  the  one  we  are 
acting  upon  today.  We  had  three  alterna- 
tives, all  of  which  could  have  prevented  the 
islanders  from  being  evicted  at  this  time. 
We  have  now  opted  for  the  third  one,  but  I 
resent  the  fact  that  people  said  the  others 
were  some  kind  of  shim-sham  or  political 
opportunism  that  really  had  no  validity  to 
them.  I  submit  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  they  all 
have  validity  to  them,  and  it  just  happens 
the  third  one  is  now  the  practical  one  we 
can  put  into  effect. 

We  can  now  pass  this  bill,  I  hope,  since 
all  parties  in  this  House  have  indicated  sup- 
port. We  can  pass  the  bill  and  then  await 
the  Swadron  commission  report,  and  all  of 
us  can  look  at  that.  I  hope  from  it  will  come 
the  basis  for  a  permanent  solution. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also  agreed  to  on  motion. 

Hon.    Mr.   Wells:    Mr.    Speaker,   I   am   in- 
formed that  His   Honour  is   awaiting  a  call 
to  come  into  the  House. 
12:50  p.m. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
of  Ontario  entered  the  chamber  of  the  Leg- 
islative Assembly  and  took  his  seat  upon 
the  throne. 


4314 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ROYAL  ASSENT 
Hon.  Mr.  Aird:  Pray  be  seated. 
The  Deputy  Speaker:  May  it  please  Your 
Honour,  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the 
province  has,  at  its  present  sitting  thereof, 
passed1  certain  bills  to  which,  in  the  name 
of  and  on  behalf  of  the  said  Legislative 
Assembly,  I  respectfully  request  Your  Hon- 
our's assent. 

First  Clerk  Assistant:  The  following  are 
the  titles  of  the  bills  to  which  Your  Honour's 
assent  is  prayed: 

Bill  85,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Limited 
Partnerships  Act. 

Bill  136,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Land  Titles 
Act. 

Bill  137,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Registry 
Act. 

Bill  138,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Boundaries 
Act. 

Bill  Pr21,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
London. 

Bill  Pr28,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Sault  Ste.  Marie. 

Bill  Pr30,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Hamilton. 

Bill  Pr32,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Mississauga. 

Bill  Pr33,  An  Act  respecting  the  Estate  of 
Mary  Agnes  Shuter. 

Bill  Pr34,  An  Act  to  revive  Theatre  Passe 
Muraille. 

Bill  Pr35,  An  Act  to  revive  Gould's  Drug 
Store  Limited. 


Bill  Pr37,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
North  York. 

Bill  Pr38,  An  Act  respecting  the  Borough 
of  Etobicoke. 

Bill  Pr39,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Ottawa. 

Bill  59,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Game  and 
Fish  Act. 

Bill  139,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Shoreline 
Property  Assistance  Act,  1973. 

Bill  152,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Beef  Cattle 
Marketing  Act. 

Bill  153,  An  Act  to  repeal  the  Warble  Fly 
Control  Act. 

Bill  164,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Insurance 
Act. 

Bill  165,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Motor 
Vehicle  Accident  Claims  Act. 

Bill  170,  An  Act  to  erect  the  Township  of 
Gloucester  into  a  City  Municipality. 

Bill  171,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Valida- 
tion of  Certain  Adoption  Orders  made  under 
the  Child1  Welfare  Act,  1978. 

Bill  175,  An  Act  to  provide  for  Municipal 
Hydro-Electric  Service  in  the  City  of  Sud- 
bury. 

Bill  181,  An  Act  to  stay  the  Execution  of 
Certain  Writs  of  Possession  issued  in  respect 
of  Certain  Premises  on  Toronto  Islands. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  In  Her  Majesty's  name, 
the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
doth  assent  to  these  bills. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
was  pleased  to  retire  from  the  chamber. 

The  House  adjourned  at  12:53  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4315 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4303) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 


LOTTARIO 

380.  Mr.  Ruston:  Would  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  inform  the  Legisla- 
ture how  many  Lottario  tickets  were  sold 
throughout  the  following  periods:  September 
14,  1980,  to  September  20,  1980;  September 
21,  1980,  to  September  27,  1980;  September 
28,  1980,  to  October  4,  1980;  October  5, 
1980,  to  October  11,  1980;  October  12,  1980, 
to  October  18,  1980;  October  19,  1980,  to 
October  25,  1980?  (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 


Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Lottario  sales  for  the 
periods  requested  Were:  September  14  to  20, 
$2,142,950;  September  21  to  27,  $2,302,067; 
September  28  to  October  4,  $2,535,803; 
October  5  to  11,  $3,103,686;  October  12  to 
18,  $3,883,586;  October  19  to  25,  $5,225,139; 
total,  $19,193,231. 

INTERIM  ANSWER 

On  question  348  by  Mr.  Foulds,  Hon.  Mr. 
Baetz  provided  the  following  interim  answer: 
A  detailed  reply  to  this  question  will  follow 
the  first  week  of  December,  approximately. 


4316  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  November  14,  1980 

Plant  closures  and  termination  entitlements,  statement  by  Mr.  Elgie  4285 

Acid  rain,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott  4285 

Highway  traffic  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Snow  4285 

Transportation  of  dangerous  goods,  statement  by  Mr.  Snow  4287 

UTDC  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Snow  4287 

TVOntario  anniversary,  statement  by  Mr.  Davis 4288 

Toronto  District  Heating  Corporation  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells  4289 

Municipal  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells 4289 

Speaker's  comment  re  access  to  Legislative  Building  4290 

Rural   electrical   rates,   questions   of  Mr.   F.    S.   Miller:    Mr.    Nixon,    Mr.    MacDonald, 

Mr.   McKessock   4290 

Energy  tax  rebates,  questions  to  Mr.  F.   S.   Miller:   Mr.   Nixon,  Mr.   Cassidy,   Mr.  J. 

Reed,  Mr.  Laughren,  Mr.  Peterson  4291 

Stratford  Festival,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Cassidy  4293 

Auto  industry  layoffs,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Mancini,  Mr.  Bounsall, 

Mr.    Ruston    ■ 4294 

Economic  development,  questions  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:   Mr.  Peterson,  Mr.  Laughren  #296 

Hospital  emergency  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Mackenzie  4297 

DREE  assistance,  questions  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith  4297 

Suspension  of  doctor,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Conway  4298 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs,  Mr.  G.  I.  Miller  4299 

Land  severance,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Riddell 4299 

Niagara  River  pollution,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Kerrio,  Mr.  Swart  4301 

Aid  to  pensioners,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Ms.  Bryden,  Mr.  Cunningham  4301 

Point  of  privilege  re  liquid  industrial  waste:  Mr.  Swart  4302 

Point  of  privilege  re  access  to  Legislative  Building:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  4302 

Point  of  privilege  re  identification  of  member:  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston  4303 

Highway  Traffic  Amendment  Act,  Bill  188,  Mr.  Snow,  first  reading 4303 

Dangerous  Goods  Transportation  Act,  Bill  189,  Mr.  Snow,  first  reading  ,  4303 

Urban  Transportation   Development   Corporation  Limited  Act,   Bill   190,    Mr.    Snow, 

first    reading 4303 

Employment  Standards  Amendment  Act,  Bill  191,  Mr.  Elgie,  first  reading  4303 

Toronto  District  Heating  Corporation  Act,  Bill  192,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4303 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980  4317 


Municipal  Amendment  Act,  Bill  193,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4303 

Residential  Tenancies  Amendment  Acts,  Bills  194  and  195,  Mr.  Philip,  first  reading  4303 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  348  and  380  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  4303 

Third  readings,  Bills  59,  139,  152,  153,  164,  165,  170,  171,  175 4303 

Toronto  Islands  Act,  Bill  181,  Mr.  Wells,  second  and  third  readings  4304 

Royal  assent  to  certain  bills:  The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  4314 

Adjournment 4314 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Lottario,  question  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Ruston 4315 

Interim   answer:    Mr.    Baetz 4315 


4318  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Aird,  Hon.  J.  B.;  Lieutenant  Governor 

Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches- Woodbine  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

McKessock,  R.  (Grey  L) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC) 

Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East  PC) 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 


No.  114 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Monday,  November  17,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears   at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  9th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4321 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2:01  p.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

MINISTRY  RESTRUCTURING 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
inform  the  House  today  of  a  number  of  or- 
ganizational changes  that  will  be  introduced 
shortly  to  my  ministry's  head  office  organiza- 
tion. 

Honourable  members  will  recall  that  two 
years  ago  I  announced  the  first  phase  of  a 
major  ministry  restructuring.  That  first  phase 
included  establishment  of  two  major  delivery 
divisions:  children's  services  and  adults' 
services.  It  also  included  the  designation  of 
four  regional  offices  for  each  of  the  divisions, 
and  a  network  of  area  and  local  offices  with 
reporting  relationships  to  their  respective 
regional  centres. 

Those  initial  steps  were  taken  to  create  an 
organization  at  both  the  regional  and  area 
levels  that  possessed  a  greater  degree  of 
decision  making  through  increased  delegation 
of  authority.  As  a  result  of  those  changes, 
we  have  been  able  to  develop  a  field  struc- 
ture that  is  more  sensitive  to  local  and 
regional  needs  and  priorities,  and  an  organi- 
zation that  possesses  the  capability  to  work 
closely  with  our  partners  in  the  social  services 
field. 

While  that  phase  of  our  reorganization  is 
complete,  we  must  move  now  to  improve 
and  to  increase  the  corporate  capacity  and 
effectiveness  of  the  ministry.  In  essence,  we 
intend  to  introduce  an  organization  at  head 
office  and  at  the  regional  level  that:  (1) 
builds  upon  the  strengths  of  the  existing 
organization;  (2)  retains  a  focal  point  for 
continued  momentum  and  stewardship  of  the 
children's  services  division  and  adult  serv- 
ices division  initiatives;  (3)  provides  a  struc- 
ture where  the  advocacy  voices  on  behalf  of 
children  and  adults  can  have  clear  and 
separate  points  of  access  to  the  ministry;  (4) 
furthers  the  decentralization  of  operations 
decision  making  to  the  field  and  strengthens 
the  capacity  of  the  area  office  to  provide 
leadership  to  service  delivery  activities,   and 


Monday,  November  17,  1980 

(5)    improves    the    ministry's    mid-term    and 
long-term  planning  and  policy  harmonization. 

I  would  now  like  to  describe  briefly  the 
new  head  office  and  regional  structure,  its 
objectives  and  its  senior  staff. 

Effective  January  1,  1981,  there  will  be 
three  divisions:  children's  and  adults'  opera- 
tions; children's  and  adults'  policy  and  pro- 
gram development,  and  finance  and  adminis- 
tration. 

The  children's  and  adults'  operations  divi- 
sion will  consolidate  delivery  of  all  ministry 
programs— in  other  words,  the  current  pro- 
grams and  service  to  children  and  adults, 
including  income  maintenance  and  institu- 
tional care.  Continued  decentralization  and 
increased  delegation  of  authority  will  be 
achieved  by  the  appointment  of  one  regional 
director  for  each  of  the  northern,  southeast- 
ern and  southwestern  regions.  In  the  short 
term,  due  to  its  complexity,  the  central  region 
will  be  headed  by  two  directors,  one  for  chil- 
dren's programs  and  the  other  for  adults' 
services.  The  existing  area  offices  for  chil- 
dren's  and  adults'  services  will  be  retained. 

I  am  pleased  to  announce  that  Peter 
Barnes  has  accepted  the  position  of  assistant 
deputy  minister  of  this  new  division.  I  am 
also  pleased  to  announce  that  the  policy  and 
program  development  division  will  be  headed 
by  the  associate  deputy  minister,  Judge 
George  Thomson,  who,  as  members  are 
aware,  is  currently  responsible  for  the  chil- 
dren's services  programs.  That  division  will 
bring  together  the  policy  development  and 
related  program  functions  from  throughout 
the  ministry.  In  this  way,  the  overall  plan- 
ning process  will  take  on  a  clear,  corporate 
thrust  within  the  context  of  the  family. 

When  the  children's  services  division  was 
established  in  1977,  it  was  agreed  that 
an  organization  focal  point  was  needed  to 
consolidate  programs  and  carry  out  a  com- 
prehensive policy  review.  This  focal  point 
is  being  maintained  within  George  Thomson's 
division  by  the  establishment  of  an  execu- 
tive co-ordinator  of  children's  policy.  This 
position  will  be  responsible  for  the  steward- 
ship of  children's  programs  and  the  con- 
tinued development  of  initiatives  such  as 
the  omnibus  legislation.  The  current  finance 


4322 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


and  administration  division  will  not  change 
substantially  as  a  result  of  this  restructuring. 

I  would  like  to  announce  two  other 
senior  staff  appointments  at  this  time.  John 
Anderson  has  accepted  the  position  of  senior 
adviser  to  the  minister.  In  that  capacity,  in 
addition  to  working  closely  with  the  minister 
on  policy  and  operational  matters,  Mr. 
Anderson  will  be  responsible  on  behalf  of 
the  minister  and  the  deputy  minister  for 
high-level  liaison  with  special  interest  groups 
and  service  users  and  will  undertake  special 
inquiries  and  issue  resolutions  as  critical 
matters  arise.  Glen  Heagle  has  agreed  to 
accept  a  new  position,  that  of  executive 
co-ordinator  for  federal-provincial  relations. 
In  that  role,  Mr.  Heagle  will  undertake  a 
review  with  our  counterparts  in  Ottawa  of 
cost  sharing  and  constitutional  social  policy 
issues. 

I  am  confident  that  the  changes  I  am 
announcing  will  result  in  an  even  greater 
capacity  to  design,  develop  and  deliver 
programs  and  services.  I  am  equally  confi- 
dent that  there  will  be  no  adverse  impact 
on  program  delivery  during  the  implementa- 
tion of  these  changes. 

INCREASE  IN  SOCIAL  ASSISTANCE 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  advise  the  House  and  the  public  of 
changes  to  income  maintenance  programs  of 
my  ministry,  which  will  come  into  effect 
in  January  and  February  1981. 

I  am  pleased  to  say  that  cabinet,  as  an- 
nounced in  the  recent  statements  of  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller),  has  approved 
an  additional  annual  expenditure  of  approx- 
imately $49  million  to  increase  by  seven 
per  cent  the  allowances  being  paid  to  family 
benefits  recipients  and  to  those  who  receive 
general  welfare  assistance.  The  increases  in 
allowances  to  recipients  under  the  family 
benefits  program  will  be  reflected  in  the 
cheques  issued  at  the  end  of  January  1981. 
Increases  to  general  welfare  recipients  will 
be  shown  in  the  cheques  issued  at  the  begin- 
ning of  February  1981. 

The  increased  allowances  will  benefit  ap- 
proximately 115,000  recipients  of  family 
benefits  and  70,000  general  welfare  recipi- 
ents. The  last  increase  was  an  overall  10 
per  cent,  which  took  effect  in  April  and  May 
of  this  year.  I  would  like  to  point  out  that 
this  is  an  interim  adjustment  to  compensate 
for  inflation  effects.  I  must  stress  that  this 
is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  the  basic  rate 
adjustment  for  the   1981-82  fiscal  year. 

There  are  a  number  of  other  related 
changes,  which  I  will  address  briefly.  Bene- 


fits for  about  1,200  people  under  the  work 
incentives  program  will  be  increased  from 
between  $25  and  $65  per  month,  depending 
on  family  size.  The  maximum  amount  of  the 
handicapped  children's  benefits  will  be  in- 
creased by  $25,  from  $175  to  $200  per 
month.  Also,  the  earned-income  level  at 
which  benefit  reduction  starts  has  been 
raised  by  $2,000,  from  $22,000  to  $24,000. 
2:10  p.m. 

The  exemptions  on  part-time  earnings  will 
be  increased  from  between  $15  and  $40  a 
month  for  recipients  of  family  benefits.  Assets 
ceilings  for  family  benefits  clients  will  be  in- 
creased from  between  60  and  150  per  cent, 
depending  on  family  size  and!  client  type 
being  served.  For  example,  assets  ceilings  for 
a  mother  with  two  children  will  increase  from 
the  current  level  of  $2,800  to  $5,500  in 
January  1981. 

Municipalities  throughout  the  province  will 
be  permitted  to  make  comparable  adjust- 
ments to  the  needs  test  and  assets  exemption 
under  the  homemakers'  and  nurses'  services 
program.  The  phase-out  benefits  for  persons 
going  from  family  benefits  allowance  to  full- 
time  employment  will  be  increased  by  $25, 
from  $225  to  $250. 

I  am  also  pleased  to  announce  another  step 
in  our  continuing  efforts  to  assist  the  handi- 
capped in  making  the  transition  from  insti- 
tutional to  community  living  as  easily  as 
possible.  As  of  January  1981,  we  are  im- 
plementing a  discharge  allowance  of  up  to 
$337  for  persons  leaving  institutions  to  take 
up  residence  in  the  community. 

1  have  had  fact  sheets  prepared  showing 
some  examples  of  these  changes,  which  will 
be  distributed  to  the  members  opposite  and 
other  interested  persons.  I  believe  they  are 
appended  to  the  statement  as  circulated. 

CONSTRUCTION  LIEN  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
the  pleasure  today  of  tabling  a  discussion 
paper  on  the  draft  Construction  Lien  Act. 
This  discussion  paper  will  be  of  great  interest 
to  all  those  concerned  with  the  construction 
industry  of  this  province. 

The  purpose  of  the  discussion  paper  is  to 
propose  a  replacement  to  Ontario's  107-year- 
old  Mechanics'  Lien  Act.  The  suggested  re- 
placement—the draft  Construction  Lien  Act- 
is  the  product  of  considerable  discussion  be- 
tween officials  of  my  ministry  and  the  various 
segments  of  the  construction  industry:  owners, 
developers,  financial  institutions,  architects, 
engineers,  contractors  and  labour  unions. 

Construction  lien  legislation  is  vitally  im- 
portant to  Ontario's  construction  industry.  Its 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4323 


objective  is  to  protect  the  thousands  of  trades- 
men, labourers  and  small  contracting  busi- 
nesses who  provide  their  services  to  improve 
the  property  of  others.  The  draft  Construc- 
tion Lien  Act  contained!  in  the  discussion 
paper  is  intended  to  deal  with  a  number  of 
problems  that  have  prevented  the  existing 
Mechanics'  Lien  Act  from  achieving  this  ob- 
jective. 

For  example,  the  existing  act  requires  an 
owner  to  retain  a  portion  of  the  contract  price 
payable  to  the  general  contractor.  This  hold- 
back is  to  be  used  to  pay  lien  claims  of  sub- 
contractors, tradesmen  and  workmen  involved 
in  the  project.  However,  very  often  these 
persons  find  the  owner  has  spent  the  money 
he  was  required  to  retain  as  a  holdback; 
there  is  no  money  available,  therefore,  to 
satisfy  the  claims  of  the  lien  claimants. 

Although  the  act  gives  constructors  a  right 
to  enforce  their  claim  against  the  owner's 
property,  this  right  will  often  be  subordinate 
to  the  claims  of  mortgagees.  If  the  value  of 
the  mortgage,  including  accrued  interest,  ex- 
ceeds the  value  of  the  premises,  then  the 
right  of  the  lien  claimant  against  the  premises 
is  illusory.  For  this  reason,  the  discussion 
paper  proposes  that  the  holdback  on  major 
projects  be  paid  into  a  joint  trust  account, 
thereby  ensuring  the  money  will  be  available 
if  needed. 

Although  it  is  proposed  that  the  home 
owners  be  bound  by  the  draft  Construction 
Lien  Act,  there  are  a  number  of  provisions 
in  the  draft  act  that  would  reduce  the  impact 
of  the  lien  legislation  on  consumer  home 
improvements.  For  example,  the  requirement 
to  pay  the  holdback  into  a  joint  trust  account, 
which  I  just  mentioned,  does  not  apply  where 
the  value  of  the  work  to  be  done  is  less  than 
$150,000.  It  would  not  apply  therefore  to  a 
home  owner  who  was  paving  his  driveway  or 
installing  a  swimming  pool. 

The  draft  act  also  proposes  reducing  the 
amount  of  the  holdback  from  15  per  cent  to 
10  per  cent  of  the  contract  price.  Thus,  even 
if  a  home  owner  did  not  retain  the  required 
holdback,  his  maximum  liability  would  be  re- 
duced to  10  per  cent  of  the  contract  price. 

The  draft  Construction  Lien  Act  contained 
in  the  discussion  paper  addresses  a  large 
number  of  other  problems  with  the  existing 
legislation.  Many  of  these  problems  result 
from  the  language  of  the  existing  act,  much 
of  which  is  simply  incomprehensible  to  those 
who  must  rely  on  it.  The  ambiguities  of  the 
existing  legislation  often  result  in  huge  sums 
of  money  being  tied  up  in  litigation,  which 
in  turn  can  cause  serious  difficulties  for  the 
people  involved  in  a  construction  project. 


The  pervasive  language  problems  of  the 
existing  legislation  have  been  a  major  con- 
cern in  preparing  the  draft  Construction  Lien 
Act.  The  draft  act  completely  restructures 
and  rewrites  the  lien  legislation  with  a  view 
to  making  it  more  comprehensible  and  ac- 
cessible. Because  of  the  complicated  nature 
of  the  relations  with  which  it  must  deal, 
any  statute  pertaining  to  construction  liens 
is  bound  to  be  complex.  However,  a  com- 
plex subject  need  not  be  incomprehensible. 
One  major  objective  behind  the  preparation 
of  the  draft  act  has  been  the  desire  to  pro- 
duce a  more  straightforward,  comprehen- 
sible piece  of  legislation,  written  in  a  style 
as   simple   as   the  subject  will   allow. 

With  the  release  of  the  discussion  paper, 
I  look  forward  to  a  period  of  active  public 
discussion  on  the  subject.  I  hope  the  various 
segments  of  the  construction  industry  will 
offer  suggestions  as  to  how  the  draft  Con- 
struction Lien  Act  can  be  improved  and 
made  more  practical.  The  draft  act  is  in- 
tended to  serve  as  a  model  for  discussion; 
I  would  like  to  emphasize  it  is  not  engraved 
in  stone. 

In  addition,  I  will  be  establishing  an  ad- 
visory committee  of  experts  in  the  field  of 
construction  liens  who  collectively  will  ap- 
preciate the  lien  legislation  from  the  per- 
spectives of  all  segments  of  the  industry. 
The  advisory  committee  will  be  meeting  to- 
gether to  review  the  draft  Construction  Lien 
Act  and  making  recommendations  based  on 
their  personal  experience  and  legal  expertise. 
They  will  also  be  reviewing  the  comments 
and  suggestions  received  from  the  public 
and  will  be  making  recommendations  based 
on   those   submissions. 

It  is  my  sincere  hope  that  the  discussion 
paper  I  am  tabling  today  will  be  the  basis 
upon  which  the  construction  industry  and 
the  government,  working  together,  will  be 
able  to  devise  for  Ontario  the  best  possible 
construction  lien  legislation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

ATTENDANCE  OF  MINISTERS 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  realize  there  is  not  much  you 
can  do  about  this,  but  of  25  ministers  who 
respond  to  questions,  leaving  out  the  chief 
government  whip,  a  grand  total  of  nine  have 
deigned  to  show  up  today— here  is  number 
10— which  I  would  think  brings  the  respect 
they  have  for  this  House  into  some  perspec- 
tive. I  am  not  sure  if  there  is  anything  you 
can  do  about  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No. 


4324 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ORAL  QUESTIONS 

ECONOMIC  EQUALITY 
FOR  WOMEN 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  direct 
a  question  to  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Per- 
haps he  is  aware  of  the  matter  of  two  Water- 
loo co-operative  program  students,  equal  in 
experience,  although  possibly  the  woman 
among  the  two  had  better  qualifications  for 
the  job,  who  were  offered  different  salaries 
in  applying  to  the  Office  of  the  Premier. 
I  would  ask  him  particularly  if  he  recalls 
that  about  $430,000  has  now  been  paid  for 
an  advertising  campaign  across  Ontario  that 
says  in  essence,  "Paying  a  woman  less  than 
a  man  for  doing  substantially  the  same  work 
is  not  just  unfair,  it  is  illegal." 

Does  the  minister  remember  that  ad  and 
can  he  tell  us,  therefore,  what  investigation 
he  is  going  to  be  doing  of  the  Office  of  the 
Premier,  where  a  differential  in  salary  was 
offered,  with  the  male  being  offered  consid- 
erably more  than  the  woman  in  this  case, 
although  any  examination  of  the  credentials 
would  seem  to  indicate  either  equal  experi- 
ence or  greater  qualifications  on  the  part  of 
the  woman?  What  investigation  is  the  minister 
going  to  be  doing,  keeping  in  mind  precisely 
that  not  only  is  it  unfair,  it  is  illegal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  there  be 
no  doubt  that  this  is  the  position  of  this 
government:  it  is  illegal  and  it  is  unfair. 

It  is  with  some  degree  of  regret  I  point 
out  that,  as  usual,  without  exploring  beyond 
the  story,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  has 
chosen  to  pick  this  up  without  investigating 
it  himself  or  having  someone  else  do  it.  I 
have  already  taken  the  opportunity  of  per- 
sonally asking  for  a  report  on  it.  I  think  it  is 
fair  to  say,  at  the  very  least  and  probably  the 
very  best,  one  could  call  it  inaccurate  sen- 
sationalism. 
2:20  p.m. 

There  is  absolutely  no  doubt  as  to  what 
happened,  if  I  may  state  for  the  record  the 
exact  incident  that  took  place.  The  present 
students  on  the  staff  in  the  Premier's  office 
are  paid  approximately  $200  if  they  are 
third-year  students  and  $225  per  week  if 
they  are  fourth-year  students.  The  particu- 
lar man  who  was  interviewed  was  told  the 
salary  ranges  and  he  said  he  had  been  mak- 
ing considerably  more  than  that  at  a  previ- 
ous co-op  job  he  had,  namely  about  $350. 
He  was  told  he  could  not  expect  to  receive 
anything  in  that  range;  it  would  be  at  least 
$100  less  than  that. 

Somehow,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  re- 
porter was  told  the  facts,  that  inaccuracy  has 


been  sustained  by  the  question  the  member 
puts  to  me  now  and  it  is  not  true. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  If  the  gov- 
ernment wishes  to  continue  its  running  battle 
with  the  Globe  and  Mail,  it  should  feel  en- 
tirely free  to  do  so.  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
when  we  called  the  director  of  placement 
services  at  the  University  of  Waterloo,  he 
admitted  very  clearly  on  the  telephone  that 
Mr.  Ferdinand,  who  conducted  the  interviews 
for  the  Office  of  the  Premier,  did,  in  his 
words,  "make  an  unfortunate  mistake"? 

Given  that  the  Premier's  office  has  been 
hiring  co-op  students  from  Waterloo  for  about 
four  years,  such  a  mistake  in  setting  salary 
ranges  is  scarcely  credible,  and  given  the 
fact  that  this  problem  still  exists  in  the 
Premier's  office,  will  the  minister  admit  now 
that  his  advertising  campaign  is  rather  in- 
effectual and  a  change  in  the  laws  of  Ontario 
is  exactly  what  is  required  to  change  this 
problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  I  will  not  admit  that 
the  campaign  has  been  ineffective.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  we  have  had  more  complaints 
and  closed  more  cases  in  a  period  of  six 
months  than  any  other  province  has  even 
started  to  look  at. 

Let  me  say  to  the  member  that  equal  pay 
for  substantially  the  same  work  in  this  prov- 
ince is  being  enforced  both  on  the  basis  of 
specific  complaints  and  by  way  of  audit.  Let 
me  also  tell  the  member  that  just  because 
he  says  it,  does  not  make  it  right.  The  rec- 
ords show  the  Premier's  office  hires  people 
on  the  basis  of  their  qualifications  and  abil- 
ity, and  the  story  was  wrong. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  view  of  the  minister's  unqualified  defence 
of  the  decision— 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No  defence,  just  the  facts. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  In  view  of  the  minister's 
citing  of  the  facts,  is  the  minister  aware 
that  the  decision  to  spend  $485,000  to  ad- 
vertise this  toothless  equal  pay  law  that  we 
have  in  Ontario  right  now  has  so  far  this 
year  resulted  in  only  122  awards,  and  in 
awards  amounting  to  $72,000  or  about  four 
cents  for  every  working  woman  in  Ontario? 
Does  that  not  really  indicate  that  no  amount 
of  advertising  can  substitute  for  an  effective 
law  to  give  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
thoroughly  disagree  with  the  statement  that 
any  teeth  are  missing  from  the  act.  If  there 
are  teeth  missing,  we  had  better  take  the 
leader  of  the  third  party's  teeth  out  and  check 
them. 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4325 


I  have  to  say  that  the  number  of  com- 
plaints and  the  number  of  audits  being  car- 
ried out  cannot  be  matched  by  any  other 
government.  I  would  say  to  the  member 
that  he  may  want  to  look  only  at  the  amount 
of  money  that  is  recovered  but  I  look  at 
the  number  of  cases  that  are  dealt  with 
and  future  inequities  that  are  dealt  with. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  the  min- 
ister has  still  not  said  whether  he  is  going 
to  investigate  this  matter,  I  take  it  the  min- 
ister is  quite  satisfied  simply  to  have  asked— 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  He  told  the  member.  Why 
doesn't   the   member   listen? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  very  diffi- 
cult to  speak  above  the  rattling  and  yapping 
and  nattering  that  come  from  the  back  row 
over  there. 

Mr.  Speaker:   Try  to  ignore  it. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  will  ask  the  minister,  is 
he  going  to  send  one  of  his  famous  investi- 
gators to  investigate  this,  or  is  he  satisfied 
just  to  take  the  side  given  to  him  by  a  per- 
son in  the  Premier's  office  without  personally 
talking  to  the  students  themselves  to  confirm 
their  side  of  the  story?  Will  he  be  investi- 
gating? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  have  no  problem  in 
asking  one  of  the  investigators  to  look  at 
this,  but  let  me  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  look 
on  myself  as  a  reasonable  investigator  and 
I  have  investigated.  It  is  not  true. 

ACID  RAIN 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  ask  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Energy. 
He  is  undoubtedly  aware  that  the  second 
report  on  long-range  transport  of  air  pollu- 
tion has  come  out  indicating  that  the  number 
of  Ontario  lakes  killed  by  acid  rain  may  al- 
ready exceed  4,000,  which  is  an  almost 
thirtyfold  increase  over  the  number  of  lakes 
we  knew  about  last  year  at  this  time. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  Ontario  Hydro's 
fossil  fuel  generating  stations  accounted  for 
30  per  cent  of  Ontario's  sulphur  dioxide 
emissions?  In  light  of  the  fact  that  recent  dis- 
cussions have  taken  place  between  the  Deputy 
Minister  of  the  Environment  and  Ontario 
Hydro,  would  the  Minister  of  Energy  finally, 
after  repeated  questioning,  tell  this  House 
exactly  what  control  orders  he  expects  will  be 
placed  by  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
(Mr.  Parrott)  on  the  Hydro  facilities  in  order 
to  curb  sulphur  dioxide  and  nitrous  oxide 
emissions? 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  obviously  I 
have  some  interest  in  the  question  but,  as 
the  question  is  put,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion is  asking  me  to  respond  to  what  might 
be  the  activities  of  my  colleague  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment.  I  do  remind  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  that  this  question  was  put 
to  my  colleague  two  or  three  weeks  ago,  as  I 
recall,  and  he  assured  the  House  at  that 
time  that  he  had  the  matter  in  hand  and  we 
could  expect  some  statement  from  him  before 
too  long  in  that  regard. 

I  would  point  out  that  the  figures  in  the 
article  that  the  member  refers  to  are  based 
upon  computer  modelling  and  not  necessarily 
upon  actual  fact  in  so  far  as  the  overall  report 
is  concerned.  A  great  many  of  the  initiatives 
with  respect  to  acid  rain  have  been  taken  on 
this  side  of  the  border  and  not  on  the  other. 

Certainly  Ontario  Hydro,  if  I  could  speak 
for  it,  is  very  cognizant  of  the  importance 
and,  as  I  reported  to  the  House  in  response  to 
a  question  on  this  subject  some  weeks  ago, 
I  have  been  expecting  a  report  from  the 
officials  of  Ontario  Hydro  as  to  what  steps 
they  might  be  able  to  take  in  order  to  help 
curb  this  particular  rate  of  emission.  Once  I 
have  that  information,  I  will  be  glad  to  share 
it  with  the  House.  I  will  draw  the  concern 
of  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  to  the  atten- 
tion of  my  colleague  when  he  returns,  with 
respect  to  the  responsibilities  that  are  his. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  Why  is  it 
that  the  Minister  of  Energy  is  always  having 
to  wait  for  other  people?  Why  does  he  have 
to  say  that  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
will  tell  him  what  the  plans  are,  or  that 
Ontario  Hydro  might  make  a  report  to  him? 

May  I  ask  the  minister  whether  he  intends 
to  tell  Hydro  that  they  are  going  to  have 
to  clean  up  their  act?  At  present,  Nanticoke 
generating  station  alone  in  1981-82  will  be 
putting  out,  apparently,  727  short  tons  a  day 
of  sulphur  dioxide;  the  way  the  trend  is 
moving,  Hydro  will  be  putting  out  about  70 
per  cent  of  what  Inco  is  going  to  be  putting 
out.  Is  it  not  time  that  he,  as  Minister  of 
Energy,  spoke  to  the  people  at  Hydro  and 
instructed  them  to  clean  up  their  act,  instead 
of  being  like  some  of  the  reticent  corporations, 
waiting  for  the  other  minister  to  tell  him 
what  he  has  to  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  am  glad  to  have  the 
supplementary  because  I  did  not  want  to 
create  the  impression  that  I  was  unmindful 
of  the  responsibilities  that  are  mine  to  ac- 
count to  the  House  for  the  activities  of  the 
Hydro  corporation. 


4326 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


We  have  asked  the  Hydro  officials  to  take 
a  very  serious  look  at  this  matter  and  to 
come  up  with  some  proposals  to  reduce  the 
rate  of  these  toxic  emissions.  I  think  that,  in 
all  fairness,  I  should  await  their  report.  Once 
I  have  it,  we  will  be  quite  prepared  to  take 
what  action  is  considered  practicable  and  in 
the  interests  of  the  environment  and,  indeed, 
of  the  health  of  the  people  to  be  affected. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  minister  has  qualified  his  answer  in  so 
many  ways  that  it  is  impossible  to  know 
whether  any  effective  measures  will  be  taken 
to  curb  the  sulphur  dioxide  emissions  and 
their  consequences  in  acid  rain  coming  from 
Hydro.  Could  the  minister  explain  why  it  is 
that  in  the  constituency  newsletter  of  the 
member  for  Simcoe  Centre  (Mr.  G.  Taylor) 
the  problem  is  seen  so  much  more  simply 
that  he  reported  to  his  constituents  this  fall 
that  all  governments  on  both  sides  of  the 
border  are  committed  to  bringing  the  acid 
rain  under  control  by  1982?  Are  we  to  take 
it,  then,  that  this  government  is  not  com- 
mitted to  bringing  the  acid  rain  under  con- 
trol by  1982?  Did  the  member  for  Simcoe 
Centre  have  it  wrong? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
rather  be  judged  on  what  I  finally  do,  rather 
than  on  speculation  in  advance  of  the  deci- 
sion. I  do  not  apologize  for  that  position.  I 
would  rather  be  taking  some  decisions  based 
on  some  technical  advice  and  then  be 
judged  on  them,  rather  than  engaging  in 
speculative  questions  all  this  time  and  at- 
tempting to  figure  things  out. 
2:30  p.m. 

TOMATO  PROCESSING 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  to  the  minister  responsible  for 
promoting  the  sales  of  Ontario  farm  prod- 
ucts. In  this  plain  brown  envelope  are 
Ontario  hothouse  tomatoes;  they  come  from 
the  Niagara  Peninsula,  as  a  matter  of  fact. 
They  really  are  excellent.  I  commend  them 
to  everybody  on   the   government  side. 

Can  the  minister  explain  why  Ontario 
hothouse  tomatoes  as  magnificent  as  these 
ones  here,  which  have  been  coming  to 
market  for  the  last  two  months,  have  been 
kept  off  the  shelves  of  supermarkets  in  the 
Loblaws  chain  and  have  been  appearing 
only  irregularly  in  other  supermarkets  across 
the  province,  and  why  consumers  as  a  con- 
sequence have  had  no  choice  in  many  cases 
but  to  buy  imported  tomatoes? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Say  you  don't  know,  Lome. 


Mr.  Breaugh:  Just  admit  you  don't  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  No.  I  would  not  say 
that. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  honourable  member  who 
has  brought  this  forth  is  well  aware  that 
we  are  promoting  the  sale  of  Ontario 
products  at  every  opportunity.  Wherever 
one  goes,  one  sees  our  symbol  of  Ontario 
products.  If  he  will  give  me  the  name  of 
these  tomatoes  that  he  claims  are  kept  off 
the  shelf  and  where  they  come  from,  I  will 
be  glad  to  check  into  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  growers  of  hot- 
house tomatoes  have  had  to  sell  some  of 
their  product  at  distress  prices,  and  one  of 
the  major  reasons  is  their  being  shut  out 
of  the  shelves  of  Loblaws  and  other  super- 
markets, and  since  the  imported  product  is 
being  sold  up  to  the  price  of  the  Canadian 
product  in  the  supermarkets,  even  though  the 
wholesale  price  is  lower,  can  the  minister  say 
what  the  point  is  of  this  practice  of  super- 
markets, if  it  is  not  just  to  give  inflated 
profits  to  the  supermarkets  and  no  benefit  to 
the  consumers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  The  honourable 
member  has  brought  out  his  concern  now. 
He  is  as  well  aware  as  I  am  that  the  em- 
bargo is  not  high  enough  to  protect  our 
Ontario  producers.  That  is  the  problem,  and 
he  is  as  well  aware  of  it  as  I  am. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  a  few  years 
ago  a  private  member  of  this  Legislature 
wrote  to  Dominion  Stores  and  asked  them, 
concerning  this  problem,  why  they  were  not 
displaying  the  hothouse  tomatoes  in  Ontario? 
Mr.  Ivor  Crimp,  the  vice-president  of  Do- 
minion, wrote  back  saying:  "We  should 
have  had  them  prominently  displayed,  prop- 
erly marked  and  been  active  in  our  market- 
ing effort  concerning  them.  The  public 
should  have  a  chance  to  make  their  choice"? 
Does  the  minister  not  think  that  principle 
should  apply  today,  and  will  he  table  in 
this  House  any  correspondence  he  has  had 
with  the  major  supermarkets  asking  that  they 
give  prominent  display  to  tomatoes  grown 
in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
no  intention  of  tabling  any  communications 
that  the  honourable  member  has  mentioned. 
The  people  of  this  province  have  had  their 
opportunities  to  buy  Ontario  products. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Not  at  Loblaws. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  I  have  told  the  hon- 
ourable members,  if  they  will  supply  me  with 
the  names  of  farmers  and  greenhouse  opera- 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4327 


tors  who  are  not  able  to  get  their  tomatoes 
on  the  shelves,  we  will  look  into  it  and  do 
something  about  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  is  asking  us  to 
serve  as  his  policemen,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  sug- 
gest the  minister  should  do  that  himself. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
just  asking  the  member  to  give  me  the  evi- 
dence he  is  speaking  about,  which  he  is  not 
ready  to  produce. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  We  will  bring  it  here.  The 
government  should  do  its  job. 

DUO-MATIC  PLANT  CLOSURE 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Is  the 
Minister  of  Labour  aware  of  yet  another 
plant  closing  that  has  taken  place,  this  one 
being  the  Duo-Matic  facility  in  Waterford, 
where  100  workers  will  have  lost  their  jobs 
by  December  31?  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
not  only  do  these  workers  not  qualify  for 
severance  pay  but  also  they  will  not  receive 
any  pension  benefits?  Since  Waterford  is  in 
the  vicinity  of  Brantford,  where  the  major 
layoffs  in  the  farm  equipment  industry  have 
taken  place,  they  also  face  a  bleak  future 
in  terms  of  finding  alternative  employment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  aware 
that  the  Duo-Matic  company,  which  manu- 
factures oil  furnaces,  has  announced  there  is  a 
reduction  in  the  market  for  their  product  and 
they  will  be  closing  down.  The  staff  had  some 
preliminary  meetings  with  them  and  Mr. 
Joyce,  my  special  adviser  with  regard  to  plant 
closings,  has  indicated  this  will  be  a  case 
in  which  he  will  take  a  personal  involvement. 
He  is  meeting  with  the  parties  either  later 
this  week  or  the  beginning  of  next  week. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  switch  from  oil 
to  gas  has  been  encouraged  by  public  policy 
for  several  years  and  by  what  is  clearly  hap- 
pening in  terms  of  the  relative  prices  of  oil 
and  gas,  and  when  jobs  are  on  the  line  at 
Duo-Matic  and  other  companies  making  oil 
furnace  equipment  across  the  province,  can 
the  minister  explain  why  there  has  not  been 
a  plan  of  rationalization  in  place  to  anticipate 
these  shutdowns  and  to  ensure  a  transfer  or 
conversion  to  gas  furnace  or  similar  types  of 
production  where  new  jobs  could  be  created? 
Why  should  the  workers  have  to  suffer  lay- 
offs with  no  secure  future  because  of  a  lack 
of  anticipation  or  planning  by  this  govern- 
ment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  rather  than 
disagree   with   the   member,   I   would   think 


those  would  be  the  very  questions  Mr.  Joyce 
will  be  putting  to  the  company. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  the  minister  recall  receiving  a  letter 
from  me  about  the  shutdown  of  that  plant 
and  might  I  expect  an  answer  from  him? 

Will  he  also  explain  to  the  House  whether 
there  has  been  a  grant  to  that  company  to 
assist  in  its  expansion,  particularly  since  it 
has  been  taken  over  by  new  management? 
If  there  has  been  public  money  put  in  to 
assist  in  the  expansion,  can  we  be  assured 
that  at  least  part  of  that  expansion  will  be 
kept  in  Waterford  to  maintain  the  employ- 
ment where  it  is? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  aware 
of  the  member's  letter  to  me,  and  I  recall 
sending  a  response  several  days  ago.  If  he 
has  not  received  it,  he  knows  who  to  blame. 
They  are  up  near  yer  Ottawa  somewhere. 
That  is  what  Charlie  Farquharson  would 
say:   "Somewhere  near  yer  Ottawa." 

I  am  personally  not  aware  whether  there 
has  been  any  Ontario  Development  Corpo- 
ration money  or  any  other  grants  or  loans 
to  the  company,  but  I  will  be  glad  to  ask 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman). 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Can  the  minister  indicate  at  this 
time  what  actions  his  ministry  is  taking  to 
provide  alternative  employment  for  the 
people  in  that  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
member  means  what  assistance  will  be  given 
to  workers  to  obtain  alternative  employ- 
ment, he  knows  very  well  that  the  bill  I 
have  before  the  House  would  require  com- 
panies to  co-operate  in  the  establishment 
of  manpower  adjustment  committees  where 
they  are  not  set  up  voluntarily.  Clearly, 
what  we  are  aiming  at  is  to  make  sure  the 
mechanisms  are  in  place  to  help  workers 
find  alternative  employment. 

PAYMENTS  TO  CONSULTING  FIRMS 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Chairman,  Management 
Board  of  Cabinet,  in  regard  to  a  question  I 
had1  on  the  Order  Paper  that  was  replied 
to  on  October  23. 

Can  the  minister  explain  the  fact  that, 
in  407  cases,  consultants  came  back  to  the 
government  to  ask  for  further  money  over 
and  above  the  contract  they  had  agreed  to 
and  that  had  been  tendered?  Other  people 
lost  out  because  of  the  tendered  price,  yet 
on  407   different  occasions  in  one  year  the 


4328 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


successful  contractors  came  back  and  got  an 
extension  and  an  expansion  of  their  contracts 
of  an  average  of  $10,000  over  and  above 
what  they  had  bid  originally.  How  does  the 
minister  justify  that?  Does  that  not  make 
a  mockery  of  his  whole  tendering  system? 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  No,  it  does  not,  Mr. 
Speaker.  It  was  not  money  asked  over  and 
above  what  they  agreed  to  do  it  for.  It  was 
extension  of  contracts. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  am  not  sure  what  an 
extension  of  contract  means.  Is  the  minister 
saying  his  civil  servants  and  cabinet  board 
did  not  know  what  they  required  when  they 
originally  put  these  matters  out  for  bids?  He 
is  doing  a  disservice  to  the  whole  tendering 
process  and  to  all  those  people  who  have 
lost  out.  Some  of  these  people  are  low- 
balling  on  their  bid  and  then  coming  back 
to  an  easy  government  to  get  an  increase  in 
their  contracts.  It  is  not  simply  a  matter  of 
an  extension  of  contract.  If  it  is,  the  civil 
servants  and  the  people  in  management 
board  are  irresponsible  in  not  knowing  what 
they  require  in  the  first  place. 

2:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  We  have  just  heard 
the  honourable  member's  opinion  of  what 
goes  on,  and  it  is  entirely  incorrect.  He 
knows  the  work  tendered  for  is  specific.  It 
is  what  the  ministry  thinks  it  needs  at  a 
particular  time.  He  knows  other  items  are 
often  discovered  that  need  to  be  studied 
further.  Most  of  the  consulting  engineers, 
management  consultants  and  technical  people 
have  set  schedules  for  charges.  It  is  onlv 
logical  that  the  people  who  do  the  first  half 
of  the  work  or  the  first  two  thirds  of  the 
work  should  carry  on.  It  is  not  as  the 
member  says  at  all.  I  think  the  tendering 
maintains  the  integrity  of  the  system. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  But  you  don't  pay  any 
attention  to  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  We  certainly  do.  They 
tender  for  the  work  we  expect  to  have  done 
at  that  precise  time  and,  if  there  is  an  ex- 
tension of  the  contract,  the  same  is  done  for 
all  people  in  the  business.  It  is  a  fair  system 
and  I  think  the  honourable  member  knows 
that. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: In  view  of  the  fact  that  in  the  standing 
committee  on  public  accounts  it  was  evident 
from  the  provincial  auditor's  report  that  none 
of  this  procedure  the  minister  outlined  is 
going  on  and  that  what  happens  is  the  people 
submit  the  bills  and  he  pays  them,  is  he  going 
to  re-examine  that  policy  or  operation  of  his 


government  to  ensure  we  are   getting  value 
for  the  money  they  are  spending? 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
getting  value  for  the  money  we  spend.  It  is 
not  as  automatic  as  just  submitting  an  extra 
bill  and  having  it  paid.  There  is  an  extension 
granted  by  the  ministry  for  the  extra  work  it 
asks  to  be  done. 

HERITAGE  LANGUAGES  PROGRAM 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Education  on  the 
heritage  languages  program.  The  minister  is 
aware  it  recently  came  out  with  a  study  of 
the  cultural  retention  of  Italian-Canadian 
youth.  It  had  two  major  recommendations: 
(1)  that  the  heritage  languages  program  should 
be  part  of  the  school  day  so  as  to  strengthen 
them,  and  (2)  that  there  should  be  an  Italian 
immersion  program  for  children  of  Italian 
origin.  This  particular  thing  is  supported  by 
almost  all  ethnic  groups,  and  specifically  by 
the  multicultural  ethnic  liaison  committee  to 
the  board  of  education  and  the  Polish  Cana- 
dian Congress- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  a  question  there 
some  place? 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Yes.  The  question  is,  what 
is  the  minister's  proposed  course  of  action  on 
what  appears  to  be  a  very  popular  course 
suggested  by  almost  all  ethnic  groups? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
honourable  member  is,  I  know,  referring  to 
a  study  that  was  funded  as  a  summer  works 
project  for  several  university  students  by  the 
federal  government.  That  study  apparently 
has  been  reported  to  a  group  related  to  the 
heritage  languages  program.  We  do  not  have 
a  copy  of  the  study  at  this  point- 
Mr.  Wildman:  He  has. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  Ministry  of 
Education  does  not  have  one,  I  should  like 
you  to  know,  Mr.  Speaker.  A  copy  has  not 
been  delivered  to  us. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  The  minister  could  read  the 
Globe  and  Mail;  it  was  mentioned  there. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  read  the  news- 
paper. I  should  like  to  see  the  study  itself, 
and  I  think  it  would  be  appropriate  that  I 
read  the  study  in  its  entirety  rather  than 
simply  a  newspaper  report. 

I  am  aware  that  there  is  a  recommenda- 
tion related  to  the  inclusion  in  an  integral 
way  of  the  heritage  languages  program  into 
the  educational  program  of  the  school  sys- 
tem of  Ontario.  I  am  sure  the  honourable 
member  knows  that  a  large  number  of  boards, 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4329 


at  least  those  boards  with  very  large  attend- 
ances in  heritage  language  programs,  already 
include  heritage  language  programs  as  part 
of  an  extended  school  day,  and  the  educa- 
tional program  is  taking  place  throughout  the 
school  day  in  many  of  those  schools. 

I  am  also  very  much  aware  that  about  50 
per  cent  of  the  students  involved  in  that 
kind  of  program  are  involved  in  the  Italian 
heritage  language  program,  which  seems  to 
be  the  main  thrust  of  the  newspaper  report  I 
read;  but  I  would  certainly  like  to  read  the 
whole  study  before  making  any  comment. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  asked  the  minister  very 
specifically  not  to  talk  of  extended  programs 
after  the  school  day  which  are  already  in 
existence,  because  they  treat  the  heritage 
language  program  as  secondary  and  the  stu- 
dents as  second-class  citizens.  What  I  am 
asking  is  whether  she  would  consider  treating 
it  as  a  part  of  the  day,  and  she  has  obfus- 
cated on  the  answer.  She  knows  perfectly  well 
there  have  been  several  attempts— I  have  a 
specific  question,  Mr.   Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  glad  to  hear  that. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  have  a  proposal.  As  the 
minister  knows,  on  Thursday  we  will  be 
debating  a  private  member's  bill  introduced 
by  me  which  deals  with  bilingual  education 
and  specifically  with  those  two  points  plus 
an  additional  point.  I  want  to  ask  the  min- 
ister whether  she  is  again  going  to  get  her 
colleagues  to  guillotine  the  project,  as  she 
did  two  years  ago,  or  will  she  support  it 
this  time?  Excuse  me;  is  my  English  clear 
enough  for  the  minister? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  was  a  little  dif- 
ficult, Mr.  Speaker.  I  am  not  sure  that  there 
was  any  guillotining  two  years  ago,  but  I 
shall  be  most  interested  to  hear  the  mem- 
ber's arguments  in  support  of  that  case. 

DIABETIC  DRIVERS 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  ques- 
tion is  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  Brewers'  Warehousing 
Company  has  implemented  a  policy  requir- 
ing all  its  employees  to  have  a  class  D 
driver's  licence  in  the  event  they  should 
have  to  drive  one  of  their  trucks?  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  the  import  of  such  a 
regulation  is  that  no  diabetic  in  Ontario 
would  be  hired  by  that  company? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was 
not  aware  of  the  announced  change,  if  it 
occurred,  nor  was  I  aware  of  the  implica- 
tions. I  do  know  that  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation   and    Communications    (Mr.    Snow) 


announced  some  revisions  to  that  legislation 
at  the  end  of  last  week,  but  I  do  not  know 
whether  they  apply  to  that  class  of  licence. 
I  will  be  glad  to  look  into  it. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  In  the  event  that  the 
proposed  legislation  does  not  apply  to  these 
people,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  at  any 
time  only  20  per  cent  of  the  employees  of 
Brewers'  Warehousing  would  ever  be  re- 
quired to  drive  a  truck,  will  the  minister 
use  whatever  power  he  may  have  to  take 
it  upon  himself  to  discuss  this  matter  with 
the  president  of  Brewers'  Warehousing  to 
see  that  a  fairer  and  more  equitable  ap- 
proach is  taken  for  the  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  people  in  Ontario  who  are  diabetic? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  have  a  particular  in- 
terest in  that  area  of  concern  as  well.  Be- 
cause of  having  been  a  physician,  I  am  well 
aware  that  simply  because  one  has  diabetes 
does  not  mean  one  should  be  excluded  from 
driving  a  car.  I  happen  to  know  a  good 
hockey  player  right  now  who  does  very 
well  playing  hockey.  I  will  be  pleased  to 
discuss  it  with  my  colleague  the  Minister 
of    Transportation    and    Communications. 

WHITE  MOTOR  CORPORATION 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Can  the 
minister  indicate  what  is  happening  at  White 
Motor  Corporation  in  Brantford  and  whether 
it  is  possible  that  the  plant  may  be  closed? 
If  so,  has  the  minister  received  any  notice 
to  that  effect  and  does  he  know  whether 
proper  procedures  will  be  followed  in  terms 
of  severance  to  the  employees? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
received  no  notice  from  the  company  indi- 
cating it  will  be  closing  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  In  that  case,  will  the 
minister  find  out  what  is  happening  in  that 
situation  and  let  the  employees  know  some 
time  in  the  very  near  future  what  exactly  is 
going  on  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  will  be  glad  to  have  the 
employees'  adjustment  service  look  into  it. 

CHRYSLER  RESEARCH  AND 
DEVELOPMENT  CENTRE 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Since  the  Minis- 
try of  Industry  and  Tourism  has  made  an 
agreement  with  Chrysler  to  build  a  research 
and  development  centre  in  Windsor,  can  the 
minister  tell  us  what  plans  he  has  for  supply- 


4330 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ing  staff  for  the  research  and  development 
department? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  aware 
there  was  an  agreement  that,  if  Chrysler 
Canada's  fortunes  were  good  at  the  end  of 
1981  or  the  beginning  of  1982,  the  agreement 
with  regard  to  contribution  of  funds  for  an 
R  and  D  centre  would  be  forthcoming.  I  am 
not  certain  at  this  stage  if  the  minister  has 
reached  the  point  where  he  feels  the  obliga- 
tion will  be  fulfilled;  so  I  am  not  aware  of  any 
discussions  that  have  gone  on  with  regard  to 
technology  and  training  of  people. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment is  going  to  put  up  substantial  moneys 
for  that  research  and  development  centre,  is 
the  minister  going  to  bring  it  to  the  attention 
of  Chrysler  Corporation,  before  the  govern- 
ment spends  those  millions  of  dollars,  that 
they  are  going  to  fail  this  year  in  meeting 
their  sales-to-production  ratio  in  Canada  and 
therefore  are  not  living  up  to  the  auto  pact? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be  glad 
to  bring  that  question  to  the  attention  of  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Gross- 
man). 

CHEMICAL  STORAGE 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Solicitor  General  concerning  a 
fire  at  Robson-Lang  Leathers  Limited  in 
Oshawa.  Is  the  ministry  now  contemplating 
some  kind  of  regulation  that  would  make 
mandatory  a  listing  of  chemicals  that  are 
stored  in  an  old  plant  like  the  tannery  in 
Oshawa  so  that  at  least  when  the  local  fire 
department  goes  to  put  out  a  fire  it  has 
some  idea  of  what  it  is  dealing  with  and  does 
not  face  unknown  explosions  as  they  did  in 
that  fire? 

2:50  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  familiar  with  the  details  of  that  fire.  I 
think  the  suggestion  implicit  in  the  question 
seems  to  make  some  degree  of  sense.  I  am 
not  sure  how  practical  it  is  from  an  admin- 
istrative standpoint,  but  I  am  quite  prepared 
to  explore  the  member's  useful  suggestion 
and  report  back  to  the  House. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Is  there  any  requirement 
now,  as  there  is  on  the  transportation  of 
hazardous  materials,  to  post  a  listing  of  the 
chemicals  that  are  stored  in  a  building  such 
as  the  tannery?  Is  there  any  current  regula- 
tion that  might  be  readily  applied  to  that 
kind  of  situation? 


Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  do  not  believe 
there  is,  but  I  will  confirm  that. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  May  I  suggest  to  the  minister  that 
he  also  consider  a  standard  colour  coding 
approach  to  the  storage  of  these  dangerous 
chemicals?  Also,  will  he  consider  a  regula- 
tion that  they  be  stored  only  in  specified 
places  in  the  establishment  and  not  left  in 
multiple  spaces  throughout  a  facility? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  will  look  into  that 
suggestion,  Mr.   Speaker. 

FINES  OPTION  PROGRAM 

Mr.  Bradley:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Attorney  General,  Mr.  Speaker,  regarding 
the  fines  option  program.  As  the  Attorney 
General  is  aware,  a  fines  option  program  is 
one  where  a  person  is  given  the  option  of 
$300  or  30  days  in  jail  and  he  has  an  op- 
portunity to  work  that  off  in  some  form  of 
community  work.  Will  he  not  agree  that  in 
such  a  circumstance  the  convicted  person 
is  clearly  not  a  danger  to  society,  nor  is  the 
offence  one  that  would  warrant  incarcera- 
tion? Would  it  not  be  better  if  such  a  person 
had  the  option  to  work  off  his  fine  in  a 
service  to  the  community  when  he  cannot 
afford  to  pay  the  actual  fine?  This  option 
is  now  available,  I  believe,  in  Alberta  and 
Saskatchewan. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
am  familiar  to  some  extent  with  the  legisla- 
tion, certainly  in  Saskatchewan  although  I 
am  not  sure  about  Alberta's.  We  are  review- 
ing this  program  in  some  depth  right  now, 
and  we  will  have  something  to  say  about  it 
in  the  not-too-distant  future  in  so  far  as 
Ontario   is  concerned. 

Mr.  Bradley:  I  am  sure  the  minister  would 
agree  with  me,  because  he  has  so  stated  in 
his  estimates.  He  is  certainly  familiar  with 
the  estimates  of  the  other  ministries  in  the 
justice  field.  Will  he  not  agree  that  the  cost 
of  keeping  these  people  in  jail  is  such  that 
the  short-term  sentence  where  a  person  can- 
not pay  the  fine  is  not  desirable?  Will  he 
not  agree  the  legal  problem  that  has  arisen 
concerning  the  federal  Criminal  Code  is  not 
really  an  obstacle,  since  in  Saskatchewan 
the  federal  government  apparently  has  co- 
operated to  the  extent  that  it  is  prepared  to 
implement  that  kind  of  program  at  the  fed- 
eral level  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  am  not  suggesting 
there  are  any  constitutional  impediments.  I 
certainly  made  it  very  clear  during  the  de- 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4331 


bate  on  the  Provincial  Offences  Act  that  it 
was  not  in  the  public  interest  to  put  the  tax- 
payers to  the  expense  related  to  jail  sen- 
tences where  people  cannot  pay  fines.  I  do 
not  think  it  is  a  wise  expenditure  of  public 
funds.  We  made  it  very  clear  we  should  be 
exploring  all  of  these  options  in  relation  to 
incarceration  when  a  person  has  been  given 
a   fine. 

We  think  that  when  a  fine  has  been  im- 
posed, incarceration  for  failure  to  pay  the 
fine  should  be  the  last  possible  alternative. 
I  am  simply  agreeing  with  the  honourable 
member  that  this  is  something  we  are  going 
to  continue  to  pursue.  It  was  certainly  very 
much  the  philosophy  of  the  provincial  of- 
fences legislation. 

CONDOMINIUM  ONTARIO 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations.  Has  the  minister  read  the 
recent  article  written  for  The  Condominium 
newspaper  by  his  former  staff  member,  Irv 
Kumer?  In  it,  that  lawyer  stated:  "Condo- 
minium Ontario  does  not  seem  to  be  able  to 
provide  the  kind  of  direct  advice  and  infor- 
mation on  specific  questions  that  form  the 
reason  for  creating  it  in  the  first  place. 
They  are  so  obsessed  with  disclaiming 
liability  for  advice  they  give  and  so  hesitant 
to  provide  any  advice  that  would  really  be 
helpful  that  the  whole  operation  as  presently 
constituted  probably  is  not  worth  the  effort/' 

Has  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  seen  the  comments  attrib- 
uted to  his  colleague,  the  member  for  Dur- 
ham West  (Mr.  Ashe),  in  which  he  takes 
the  New  Democratic  Party  position  that 
Condominium  Ontario  is  a  major  problem 
and  should  be  replaced  by  a  registrar  of 
condominiums?  In  the  light  of  such  criticism 
from  his  own  ranks,  will  the  minister  tell 
the  House  whether  his  government  will  con- 
tinue to  finance  this  body  after  December 
31,  since  it  is  fairly  clear  that  the  court 
case  concerning  the  levy  to  finance  Condo 
Ontario  will  not  be  completed  this  fall? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are 
three  questions  there.  First  of  all,  I  draw  to 
the  honourable  member's  attention  that  some 
action  was  taken  by  the  Law  Society  of 
Upper  Canada  concerning  the  giving  of 
advice.  If  Mr.  Kumer  does  not  know  what 
happened  when  he  was  urging  people  to 
give  advice  and  what  the  reaction  of  the 
Law  Society  of  Upper  Canada  was,  I  am 
rather  surprised. 


Second,  I  think  the  member  has  a  private 
bill,  and  if  he  does  not  some  other  NDP 
member  has,  to  put  in  a  registrar.  So  that 
is  a  matter  of  opinion. 

Third,  the  entire  question  of  the  thrust 
of  Condominium  Ontario  and  its  future  role, 
particularly  in  regard  to  some  of  the  things 
the  member  has  asked,  will  be  the  sub- 
ject of  a  meeting  between  Condominium 
Ontario  and  myself  some  time  later  this 
month  or  within  the  next  few  days.  I  will 
gladly  report  back  to  the  House  concerning 
that  meeting. 

Mr.  Philip:  Has  the  minister  reviewed 
the  proposed  changes,  which  I  understand 
the  new  president  of  Condominium  Ontario, 
Dr.  Peter  Donnelly,  has  submitted  to  him? 
After  this  meeting  with  Condo  Ontario,  can 
the  minister  inform  the  Legislature  whether 
his  officials  or  those  of  Condo  Ontario  will 
have  costed  these  new  proposals  and  what 
position  the  minister  is  taking  on  these  pro- 
posals? Will  he  also  give  a  guarantee  to  this 
Legislature  that  Condo  Ontario  will  provide 
to  the  public  regular  financial  statements  of 
its  spending,  la  practice  that  was  not  followed 
under  the  former  president,  Mr.  Batchelor, 
whom  the  minister  appointed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  thought  I  had  answered 
that  question  the  first  time  around;  I  presume 
the  member  had  it  written  down  and  had 
to  read  it.  I  do  not  understand  the  business 
about  the  financial  statements  but,  if  the 
member  wants  to  elaborate  in  a  note  to  me, 
I  will  be  glad  to  look  into  it. 

I  draw  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
fact  that  Condominium  Ontario  is  not  an 
arm  of  the  government.  Condominium  On- 
tario operates  at  arm's  length.  The  member 
who  asked  this  has  been  in  several  disputes 
and  has  lost  every  one  of  them  in  this 
House,  demanding  that  the  government 
provide  financial  statements  or  mailing  lists 
or  other  things.  If  he  will  tell  me  in  writing 
what  he  wants,  I  will  do  my  best  to  get 
it  for  him. 

BURLINGTON  GAS  EXPLOSION 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  same  minister  has  the 
answer  to  another  question  asked  previously. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  November 
13  the  member  for  St.  Catharines  (Mr.  Brad- 
ley) asked  a  number  of  questions  arising  out 
of  a  gas  explosion  that  destroyed  a  home  in 
Burlington.  Investigation  of  this  accident  be- 
ing conducted  by  the  staff  of  the  technical 
standards  division  of  my  ministry  has  not 
been  concluded.  We  received  the  Ontario  Re- 


4332 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


search  Foundation's  report  on  November  4 
and  it  is  being  analysed  carefully. 

I  would  point  out  that  the  report  was 
provided  to  us  as  a  matter  of  courtesy.  The 
primary  objective  of  the  Ontario  Research 
Foundation  test  was  to  provide  data  on  AMP 
T-fitting  for  litigation  purposes.  Because  of 
this  litigation  I  do  not  think  it  appropriate  to 
comment  on  the  contents  of  the  report.  How- 
ever, I  can  say  the  report  did  not  conclude 
that  the  plastic  T-joint  had  separated  from 
the  pipeline  supplying  gas  to  the  house. 
That  fact  was  established  by  our  own  on-site 
investigation  on  September  16. 

The  honourable  member  asked  whether  it 
was  correct  that  30  per  cent  of  these  fittings, 
which  he  said  were  tested  by  the  Consumers' 
Gas  Company's  Chatham  laboratory,  had 
failed  to  meet  pressure  specifications  and 
that  AMP  of  Canada  Limited,  which  he 
identified  as  the  manufacturer,  now  makes 
fittings  to  higher  specifications. 

In  reply,  I  would  point  out  that  Con- 
sumers' Gas  Company  does  not  have  a 
laboratory  in  Chatham,  nor  did  it  make  any 
such  findings  at  its  Toronto  laboratory.  Union 
Cas,  which  does  have  a  laboratory  in  Chat- 
ham, did  not  make  any  such  findings  either. 
Further  I  am  advised  that  AMP  of  Canada 
Limited  is  the  distributor,  and  not  the  manu- 
facturer, of  these  fittings. 

3  p.m. 

The  suggestion  that  new  fittings  are  now 
being  designed  to  meet  higher  specifications 
is  misleading.  The  Canadian  Standards 
Association  standard  for  these  fittings  has 
not  changed  during  the  period  we  are  talk- 
ing about.  In  the  light  of  advances  in  plastic 
technology,  changes  were  made  to  the  mate- 
rial and  the  body  of  the  fitting  in  1977.  The 
designed  strength  of  the  fitting,  before  and 
after  the  change,  has  met  the  CSA  standard. 
We  have  no  information  to  indicate  there  is 
an  urgent  or  unusual  problem  with  the  old 
or  new  style  fitting.  Indeed  because  of  its 
flexibility  and  absence  of  corrosion,  a  plastic 
system  provides  additional  safety  when  com- 
pared with  the  more  rigid  steel  system. 

Immediately  following  the  accident, 
Union  Gas  stepped  up  the  frequency  of  its 
gas  leakage  service.  Although  some  small 
leaks  have  been  found,  there  have  been  no 
further  discoveries  of  line  separation.  Some 
of  these  installations  are  over  landfill  sites 
which  may  be  more  prone  to  leakage  as  a 
result  of  stresses  caused  by  settlement  of  the 
fill  in  such  sites.  I  understand  Union  Gas  is 
directing  special  attention  to  these  locations. 


Our    investigation    in    the    matter    is    con- 
tinuing. 

MUNICIPAL  ELECTION  TIES 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
ask  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs.  Is  the  minister  aw? re 
that,  during  last  week's  municipal  election, 
a  tie  occurred  in  one  of  the  municipalities 
I  represent  and  that  the  Municipal  Act  calls 
for  a  judge  to  do  a  recount?  However,  if  the 
tie  vote  is  maintained,  the  person  to  hold 
office  must  be  chosen  by  a  draw  from  a  hat. 
Does  the  minister  not  believe  it  is  time  to 
review  the  Municipal  Act  to  assure  we  have 
proper  legislation  to  break  these  ties  in  a 
proper  manner  in  order  that  the  people  may 
be  best  served? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  might  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
there  is  an  amendment  to  the  Municipal  Act 
at  present  on  the  Order  Paper.  It  does  not 
cover  this  but  deals  with  archaic  sections  of 
the  act.  We  are  consistently  going  through 
the  act  to  update  any  sections  that  seem 
irrelevant  or  not  up  to  date.  I  suggest  my 
friend  think  about  this  whole  matter  a  little 
more.  It  is  easy  to  criticize  that  as  a  tie- 
breaking  mechanism  but  to  come  up  with 
something  more  acceptable  is  perhaps  not  as 
easy. 

As  the  member  knows,  in  our  case  the 
returning  officer  casts  the  deciding  ballot. 
Maybe  the  municipal  clerk  should  cast  the 
deciding  ballot,  but  I  would  suggest  to  the 
member  that  many  of  the  clerks  would 
rather  have  it  this  way  than  be  left  with  that 
responsibility.  In  fact,  they  might  like  to 
have  an  unofficial  draw  first  before  they 
legally  cast  the  deciding  ballot. 

It  is  difficult  but,  fortunately,  we  have  very 
few  ties  in  this  province.  Let  us  wait  and 
see  what  the  recount  brings  forward  in  that 
case. 

Mr.  Mancini:  We  should  be  concerned  not 
only  about  this  specific  election  but  also  about 
the  general  principle  of  the  matter.  Does  the 
minister  not  think  it  is  an  important  matter 
for  a  person  to  make  decisions  for  the  next 
two  years  and  to  affect  peoples'  lives?  Does 
he  not  think  a  better  system  should  be  de- 
vised, other  than  having  a  person's  name 
drawn  from  a  hat? 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  the  same  as  the  first 
question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  just  want  to  say  I  do 
not  view  that  method  of  settling  it  with 
alarm.   If,   after  a  recount,  the  people  of  a 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4333 


given  municipality  have  voted  in  exactly  in 
the  same  numbers  for  each  of  two  candidates, 
obviously  it  is  an  absolute  split  down  the 
middle  and  some  way  has  to  be  found  to 
solve  that.  Putting  the  names  in  a  hat  and 
drawing  the  winner  seems  to  me  to  be  just 
as  equitable  a  way  of  settling  it  as  any. 

PARTICIPATION  HOUSE 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services.  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
negotiations  at  Participation  House  in  Hamil- 
ton resumed  today  and  broke  off  quickly 
after  management  refused  to  budge  one  cent 
from  the  position  it  held  at  the  beginning  of 
negotiations? 

As  the  taxpayers  and  charitable  donors  of 
this  province  have  invested  almost  100  per 
cent  of  the  capital  and  operating  costs  of 
Participation  House  and  its  programs,  will  he 
now  place  Participation  House  under  tem- 
porary trusteeship  so  that  the  residents  can 
be  returned  to  their  home  and  the  investment 
which  has  been  placed  there  by  the  tax- 
payers and  donors  can  be  saved  from  an 
apparently  intransigent  management? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must 
tell  the  honourable  member  that  I  have  not 
yet  received  that  information  from  my  staff. 
I  am  sure  by  the  time  I  get  back  to  my  office 
following  question  period  it  will  be  there. 

The  only  thing  I  can  say  at  this  point  is 
that  I  will  review  the  most  up-to-date  infor- 
mation available  to  me  and  see  whether  there 
is  any  way  in  which  I  can  appropriately  act 
so  as  not  to  interfere  with  the  present  nego- 
tiations, or  at  least  with  the  free  collective 
bargaining  process,  and  yet  be  of  some 
assistance  to  that  organization. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  As  the  minister  had  previously 
indicated  that  he  believed  there  might  be 
some  room  for  solution  of  this  protracted 
dispute,  will  he,  if  management  still  refuses 
to  move,  at  very  least  open  the  books  of 
Participation  House  to  the  scrutiny  of  the 
members  of  this  House  and  the  public  so  that 
we  may  determine  for  ourselves  whether 
Participation  House  management  is  simply 
playing  games  or  whether  it  is  that  his  minis- 
try is  not  providing  them  with  enough  money? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  can  only  interpret  that 
suggestion  to  mean  that,  if  I  am  not  prepared 
to  interfere  in  the  free  collective  bargaining 
process,  then  the  honourable  members  op- 
posite are.  I  am  not  sure  I  would  give  that 
undertaking. 


NORFOLK  TEACHERS'  DISPUTE 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
to  put  to  the  Minister  of  Education  about  the 
continuing  strike  in  Norfolk. 

Now  that  a  new  school  board  has  been 
elected  but  cannot  function  until  the  first 
week  of  December,  and  since  the  mediator 
has  yet  to  come  up  with  any  positive  results, 
at  least  as  far  as  is  publicly  known,  can  the 
minister  indicate  what  steps  she  may  be 
contemplating  to  bring  this  matter  to  a  suc- 
cessful conclusion,  since  the  young  people 
have  been  out  of  school  for  seven  weeks? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  understanding  that  there  are  some  dis- 
cussions going  on  right  at  the  present  time 
in  that  situation.  I  am  relatively  hopeful, 
because  it  would  appear  there  are  some  routes 
to  a  successful  completion  of  the  dispute;  I 
believe  those  are  being  explored. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Since  the  minister  said  exactly 
that  when  the  question  was  first  put  six  weeks 
ago,  is  there  any  indication  that  she  could 
give  to  the  members  of  the  House,  particu- 
larly the  members  from  the  area,  that  these 
discussions  are  more  hopeful  than  they  were 
a  month  or  more  ago? 

The  students  are  missing  a  good  deal  of 
school  and  the  parents  are  coming  to  the 
elected  members  from  the  area  in  some  des- 
peration. The  fact  that  there  is  no  pressure 
put  to  bear  on  this  House,  the  fact  that  it  is 
not  a  strike  in  downtown  Toronto  so  nobody 
here  gives  a  damn  about  it,  is  getting  to  be  a 
matter  of  grave  concern  for  me  and  the 
people  in  the  area. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  member  for 
Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  may  believe  that,  but 
I  have  to  tell  him  that  there  are  a  large  num- 
ber of  people  who  give  a  damn  about  this 
strike. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Yes,  there  are:  You,  me  and 
maybe  one  other,  the  member  for  Haldimand- 
Norfolk  (Mr.  G.  I.  Miller). 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Oh,  no.  There  are 
several  more  than  that  as  well. 

Mr.  Huston:  You  didn't  care  about  Windsor. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  beg  your  pardon; 
about  Windsor? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  You  need  a  pardon  about 
Windsor. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Well,  I  do  not  have 
to  beg  Windsor's  pardon  about  Windsor,  but 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  to  beg  Sault 
Ste.  Marie's  pardon  about  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
and  the  rest  of  northern  Ontario. 


4334 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


It  is  perfectly  obvious,  as  a  result  of  some 
meetings  that  were  held  about  10  days  to 
two  weeks  ago,  at  which  time  we  met  with 
representatives  of  the  parents,  the  community 
and  representatives  of  the  students,  and  what 
the  Education  Relations  Commission  did  as 
well,  that  there  has  been  some  pressure 
brought  to  bear  where  it  is  more  important; 
that,  of  course,  is  in  the  local  community. 
What  is  happening  is  that  we  are  having  some 
communications  from  individuals  who  are 
involved  on  either  one  side  or  the  other  and 
who  believe  there  is  a  route  now  to  finding  a 
solution  to  this  problem.  We  had  not  had 
that  kind  of  indication  before. 

INVESTMENT  COMPANIES'  FAILURE 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  get  a  response  from  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  to  a 
suggestion  I  would  like  to  put  about  the 
Re-Mor  and  Astra  matter. 

In  order  for  the  Legislature  to  be  able  to 
explore  and,  we  hope,  to  untangle  the  web 
of  Re-Mor  and  Astra  involvement,  will  the 
minister  support— and  I  offer  this  suggestion 
in  all  good  faith— a  referral  of  this  matter  to 
a  legislative  committee  for  consideration? 

3:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  will  not,  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
the  grounds  that  it  would  virtually  destroy 
the  litigation  or,  at  the  very  least,  it  would1 
run  head  on  into  the  litigation  that  now 
exists  in  the  situation  in  two  regards:  first, 
the  class  action  or  the  group  action  accusing 
the  registrar  of  mortgage  brokers  of  negli- 
gence and,  second,  the  question  concerning 
the  rights  of  creditors  to  have  the  Re-Mor 
funds  extricated  from  the  Astra  bankruptcy 
now  under  way. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Would  the  minister 
care  to  explain  to  the  House  the  effect  on  his 
ministry's  actions  and  decisions  in  this  case 
caused1  by  the  involvement  of  a  Mr.  Matt 
Dymond,  a  former  minister  of  the  crown  in 
Ontario,  with  Mr.  Carlo  Montemurro,  who 
was  behind  the  Astra  and  Re-Mor  ripoffs? 
Will  the  minister  explain  the  effects  of  the 
close  relationship  between  these  two  men? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  do  not  know  who  has 
any  kind  of  a  relationship  with  anybody.  It 
has  never  had  any  impact  upon  me,  and  I 
will  tell  him— 

Mr.  Breaugh:  You  are  so  lonely  a  man, 
Frank. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Well,  he  is  asking  if  some- 
body was  doing  something;  so  let  us  not  be 


so  cute.  I  say  to  the  honourable  member,  if 
he  is  suggesting  that  somebody  influenced  me 
or  somebody  within  my  ministry- 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  The  minister  has  to 
explain  his  action  in  some  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  If  the  member  wants  to 
stand  up  right  now  and  say  that  somebody 
influenced  me,  he  can  be  my  guest,  but  I 
would  ask  him  to  remember  what  is  going  to 
happen  to  him  afterwards. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
really  understand  how  a  member  can  ask  a 
question  like  that  if  he  is  not  prepared  to 
bring  forward  some  evidence  or  material.  I 
personally  know  of  no  relationships  with 
anybody  involved  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: With  respect  to  the  Re-Mor  matter,  may 
I  take  the  opportunity  to  ask  the  minister  if 
he  is  able,  as  he  promised  last  Thursday,  to 
table  today  the  application  for  the  Re-Mor 
mortgage  brokerage  licence  and  the  other 
items  I  had  asked  for,  since  that  all  ties  into 
this  overall  theme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  reply  is 
in  consultation  with  the  Ministry  of  the 
Attorney  General;  it  will  be  tomorrow.  In 
one  of  the  replies,  I  said  as  soon  as  possible, 
Monday  or  Tuesday. 

FIRE  SAFETY 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  direct  a  question  to  the  Solicitor  Gen- 
eral. What  is  the  status  of  the  Ontario  pro- 
vincial fire  code  at  the  present  time  and 
whose  ministry  will  enforce  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will 
be  introducing  legislation.  Generally,  as  far 
as  the  regulations  pertaining  to  fire  safety 
and  those  matters  are  concerned,  they  will 
be  the  responsibility  of  the  fire  marshal's 
office. 

FRENCH-LANGUAGE 
ADVISORY  COMMITTEES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Education. 
How  many  voters  did  she  find  of  the  French- 
speaking  electors  for  the  French-language 
advisory  committee  across  Ontario  for  the 
$75,650  she  spent  on  her  feeble  enumeration 
technique,  and  how  much  would  it  have 
cost  if  she  had  simply  added  the  questions 
to  the  enumeration  forms  for  the  various 
areas   where  they  would  have  applied? 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4335 


Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  as 
the  honourable  member  knows,  what  was 
carried  out  was  not  an  enumeration.  It  was 
a  method  of  attempting  to  assist  the  French- 
language  advisory  committees  to  identify 
on  a  broader  base  those  who  might  be  in- 
terested in  participating  in  the  election  of 
French-language  advisory  committee  mem- 
bers. Those  elections  are  not  part  of  the 
municipal  elections,  which  are  enumerated 
properly  for  the  election  of  trustees  and 
members  of  local  government. 

Members  of  the  French-language  advisory 
committees  are  neither  members  of  the  board 
of  school  trustees  nor  of  local  government. 
Therefore,  what  we  did  was  to  attempt  to 
help  that  group  to  identify  more  clearly 
those  francophone  individuals  within  their 
jurisdictions  who  might  be  interested  in  par- 
ticipating in  the  French-language  advisory 
committee  elections. 

That  exercise  is  now  being  completed. 
When  the  final  figures  have  been  tallied,  I 
will  certainly  ask  permission  of  the  five 
francophone  groups,  with  which  I  had  dis- 
cussions and  with  which  I  made  a  pact  I 
would  never  use  this  information  as  any 
kind  of  statistical  base,  to  permit  me  to 
provide  that  information  to  the  member. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Does  the  minister  be- 
lieve or  does  she  not  believe  that  there 
should  be  full  enumeration  for  the  FLACs? 
She  has  made  a  distinction.  Have  they  a 
right  or  not  to  have  full  enumeration  so  that 
they  know  whom  they  are  electing. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  my  under- 
standing that  enumeration  is  carried  out  for 
purposes  of  municipal  elections  to  those 
bodies  in  which  there  is  full  participation 
of  all  citizens.  Since  the  French-language 
advisory  committee,  although  established 
under  law,  is  not  what  one  would  consider 
to  be  a  municipal  body,  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  should  be  a  part  of  the  enumera- 
tion. 

RIGHT-TO-FARM  LEGISLATION 

Mr.  McKessock:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food.  Can  the  minister  tell  me  what  stage 
his  right-to-farm  legislation  is  at  and  when 
we  can  expect  it  to  be  introduced  into  the 
House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  shortly 
after  the  throne  speech  last  year  we  took  this 
up  with  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agricul- 
ture. My  staff  and  the  staff  of  the  feder- 
ation were  working  together.  About  a  month 


ago  the  federation  came  back  and  reported 
to  me  that  they  had  a  proposal  but  they 
were  not  yet  ready  to  present  it  to  me.  They 
want  to  present  it  to  the  annual  meeting 
of  the  federation  next  week.  That  is  where 
it  is  at. 

PETITION 

KU  KLUX  KLAN 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
petition  which  reads  as  follows:  We,  the 
undersigned,  petition  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor and  Legislative  Assembly  of  Ontario 
to  ensure  public  protection  against  the  Ku 
Klux  Klan,  an  organization  which  has  clearly 
violated  our  human  rights  legislation  and 
hate  literature  laws.  We  petition  for  an 
immediate  prosecution  under  the  Criminal 
Code  in  an  effort  to  end  the  activities  of 
the  Ku  Klux  Klan  in  Ontario." 

The  petition  is  signed  by  38  citizens  from 
the  good  borough  of  Scarborough. 

MOTION 

COMMITTEE  SITTING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  select 
committee  on  Ontario  Hydro  affairs  be 
authorized  to  sit  on  Thursday,  November  20, 
from  1  p.m.  to  2  p.m. 

'Motion  agreed  to. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILL 

MORTGAGE  PAYMENTS 
MORATORIUM  ACT 

Mr.  Makarchuk  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  196,  An  Act  to  provide  for  a  Moratorium 
on  Mortgage  Payments  for  Persons  affected 
by  an  Interruption  of  Employment. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  The  purpose  of  the  bill, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  to  provide  for  a  moratorium 
on  payment  of  principal  and  interest  amounts 
secured  by  mortgages  on  the  residences  of 
persons  who  suffer  an  interruption  of  em- 
ployment arising  from  a  legal  strike,  lockout 
or  layoff.  The  bill  also  protects  the  mort- 
gagor from  mortgage  default  proceedings 
during  the  moratorium  period. 

3:20  p.m. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the   answers  to  questions  388  to  391, 


4336 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


393,    396   and  397   standing  on   the   Notice 
Paper.  (See  appendix,  page  4363.) 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  supply. 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY 
OF  NORTHERN  AFFAIRS 

(continued) 

On  vote  701,  ministry  administration  pro- 
gram: 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  ask  the  minister  whether  it  is  his  intention 
to  table  the  answers  to  questions  I  asked  of 
him  in  the  opening  statement  when  we  com- 
menced the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs? 

Are  you  finished? 

Mr.  Martel:  No. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Carry  on. 

Mr.  Martel:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Are  you? 

Mr.  Martel:  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  .Are  you  running  the 
House? 

Mr.  Bolan:  I  don't  know;  I  am  starting 
to  wonder  who  is.  Do  you  want  to  carry 
on  your  conversation? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  ask  if  the  minister  has  answers  to  the 
questions  I  asked  of  him  when  we  started 
the  estimates?  I  asked  him  the  following 
questions:  What  is  the  total  advertising 
budget  for  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs 
and  its  agencies,  boards  and  commissions 
for  the  fiscal  year?  What  was  the  comparable 
advertising  budget  for  the  previous  year? 
What  advertising  agencies  are  employed? 
Are  tenders  let  for  the  account?  Will  the 
minister  also  provide  a  copy  of  the  material 
used  in  all  the  promotions,  such  as  bro- 
chures, radio  and  television  scripts,  direct 
mailing  and  any  other  promotional  material? 

I  asked  those  questions  some  three  weeks 
ago.  The  minister  has  had  three  weeks  to 
get  the  answers.  I  presume  he  has  them  now. 
If  he  does  not  have  them  now,  db  I  have 
his  undertaking  that  they  will  be  provided  to 
us  between  now  and  the  time  the  estimates 
are  finished? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe 
that  question  is  on  the  Order  Paper,  and  we 
are  preparing  a  reply  to  it. 


Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  when  we 
adjourned  last,  I  was  asking  some  questions 
of  the  minister  with  regard  to  the  relationship 
of  his  ministry  to  other  ministries  of  the 
government.  Since  he  has  delineated  that  his 
ministry  is  a  co-ordinating  ministry,  I  would 
like  to  pursue  that  a  little  with  some  specific 
examples. 

It  is  rather  difficult  to  deal  with  this  in 
one  way,  because  when  one  writes  to  the 
minister  about  a  specific  problem  in  northern 
Ontario  he  is  often  wont  to  refer  one  to 
anoher  minister.  For  instance,  there  is  the 
position  taken  by  this  minister  with  regard  to 
the  question  of  Ontario  health  insurance  plan 
coverage  for  transfers  by  doctors  of  patients 
from  northern  Ontario  to  larger  centres  in  the 
north,  to  southern  Ontario,  or  in  some  cases 
in  the  northwest,  to  Manitoba.  When  I  con- 
tacted him,  he  said  he  was  sympathetic,  but 
he  referred  me  to  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Timbrell). 

I  understand  the  Minister  of  Health  has  a 
liaison  committee  on  the  air  ambulance  ser- 
vice; they  are  talking  about  it  and  they  may 
be  coming  up  with  something.  But  I  would 
like  to  know  what  role,  if  any,  this  ministry 
has  in  advising  the  Minister  of  Health  and 
trying  to  persuade  him  to  accept  the  resolu- 
tion I  have  on  the  Order  Paper  which  would 
provide  OHIP  coverage  for  those  lands  of 
transfers. 

In  the  same  vein,  I  would  be  interested  to 
find  out  what  the  minister's  position  is  with 
regard  to  the  proposals  now  being  made  for  a 
telemedicine  program  by  the  Port  Arthur 
General  Hospital  and  by  a  Dr.  Barrett,  who 
is  a  radiologist  in  Toronto.  I  understand  Dr. 
Barrett  has  met  with  the  minister  and  with 
the  Speaker,  I  believe,  to  discuss  his  pro- 
posals. He  has  also  met  with  me.  It  is  some- 
what similar  to  what  is  in  operation  now  in 
northwestern  Quebec;  James  Bay,  I  believe, 
has  a  similar  hookup  to  Montreal  hospitals. 

I  would  be  interested  to  find  out  what 
role  this  minister  has  in  influencing  health 
policy  for  northern  Ontario.  I  know  the  minis- 
ter does  announce  programs  with  regard  to 
health  policy,  such  as  the  bursary  program 
for  professionals  to  be  attracted  to  the  north. 
But,  besides  announcing  policies  that  have 
been  decided  in  the  Ministry  of  Health,  what 
role  does  this  minister  have  in  actually  in- 
fluencing the  development  of  policy  and, 
in  particular,  the  questions  of  OHIP  transfers 
and  the  telemedicine  proposal? 

In  a  similar  vein,  can  the  minister  indicate 
what  is  happening  with  the  proposals  made 
in  Espanola,  in  the  riding  of  my  colleague 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4337 


the  member  for  Algoma-Manitoulin  (Mr. 
Lane),  for  an  integrated  facility  involving 
nursing  home  care— residential  care,  extended 
care  or  whatever  it  is  called— as  well  as  senior 
citizens'  housing?  This  is  a  very  good)  con- 
cept and  one  with  which  I  think  his  ministry 
is  involved  in  a  committee.  Can  he  give  me 
some  indication  of  what  stage  it  is  at  and 
what  his  ministry's  role  is  in  it? 

Can  he  also  say  what,  if  anything,  his 
ministry  is  doing  about  the  mixup  we  have 
between  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  the 
Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Services 
with  regard  to  a  similar,  although  not  as 
large,  pilot  project  that  is  now  in  operation 
in  Hornepayne  for  residential  care  for  the 
elderly  and  disabled?  This  is  the  kind  of 
concept,  I  am  sure  the  minister  will  agree, 
that  we  need  to  expand  in  the  small  com- 
munities in  northern  Ontario,  since  it  enables 
the  elderly  and  the  disabled  to  remain  in 
their  own  communities,  rather  than  being 
transported  great  distances  to  facilities  in 
larger  centres.  I  will  be  interested  to  hear 
his  comments  on  his  responsibilities  in  that 
area. 

In  relation  to  the  Ministry  of  Industry 
and  Tourism,  I  hope  the  minister  can  clarify 
a  controversy  that  has  developed  as  a  result 
of  statements  made  by  his  colleague  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman)  on  October  22,  when  the  esti- 
mates of  his  ministry  were  being  debated 
by  the  resources  development  committee. 
During  that  debate,  he  indicated  that  fur- 
ther decisions  by  the  provincial  government 
on  provision  of  funding  for  infrastructure 
for  the  proposed  King  Mountain  project  in 
my  riding  would  await  the  completion  of 
the  Department  of  Regional  Economic  Ex- 
pansion agreement  on  tourism  for  northern 
Ontario. 

Subsequent  to  those  statements  becoming 
public,  the  president  of  the  development 
firm,  a  Mr.  Frank  Rush,  characterized  the 
statement  of  the  minister's  colleague  as 
.'"bull."  I  believe  that  was  the  word  he  used; 
it  was  on  the  front  page  of  the  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  Star. 

He  said  the  DREE  agreement  might  have 
some  bearing— but  very  little,  if  any— on  the 
proposals,  and  he  had  to  have  a  decision  on 
provincial  involvement  by  December  31. 
Also,  the  Assistant  Deputy  Minister  of  Re- 
gional Economic  Expansion  in  Ottawa  said 
that,  although  they  were  interested  in  the 
King  Mountain  project,  the  agreement  on 
tourism  for  northern  Ontario  between  the 
province    and    the    federal    government    was 


not  nearly  rich  enough  to  be  able  to  provide 
any  significant  contribution  to  the  King 
Mountain  project.  My  colleague  the  member 
for  Sault  Ste.  Marie  (Mr.  Ramsay)  said  that 
as  far  as  he  was  aware  there  was  no  real 
relationship  between  the  negotiations  with 
DREE  and  the  King  Mountain  project. 

Frankly,  it  is  inconceivable  to  me  that  a 
minister  responsible  for  tourism— even  in  a 
Tory  government— would  not  know  about 
the  relationship  between  the  negotiations  on 
a  tourism  agreement  with  DREE  and  a 
major  project  in  northern  Ontario.  But  that 
appears  to  be  the  case. 

Is  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  the 
so-called  lead  minister  in  the  negotiations 
with  DREE,  and  can  he  clear  up  the  con- 
tradictions that  have  been  raised  by  the 
statements  of  his  colleagues?  Maybe  he  can 
also  tell  us  in  general  terms  what  is  the 
relationship  between  the  Ministry  of  North- 
ern Affairs  and  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  with  regard  to  tourist  developments 
in  northern  Ontario,  because  obviously  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  does  not 
know  what  he  is  talking  about. 

3:30  p.m. 

I  will  not  prolong  this,  but  in  every  esti- 
mates we  have  had  on  this  ministry  I  have 
raised  the  question  of  the  relationship  be- 
tween this  ministry  and  the  Ministry  of 
Transportation  and  Communications.  We 
will  be  talking  about  northern  roads  on  a 
specific  vote;  so  I  will  not  prolong  it.  But 
it  seems  to  me  rather  interesting  that  the 
minister  could  state  in  Sudbury  last  Thurs- 
day that  the  bypass  between  Highway  144, 
the  Timmins  highway,  and  Highway  17  at 
Sudbury  is  on  schedule  and  will  be  com- 
pleted in  1981.  Whereas,  on  exactly  the 
same  day,  the  member  for  Sudbury  East 
(Mr.  Martel)  received  a  letter  from  the  Min- 
ister of  Transportation  and  Communications 
(Mr.  Snow),  who  said  this  project  would  be 
completed  by  1982  at  the  earliest.  The  min- 
ister said  1981,  and  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation  and  Communications  said   1982. 

Who  is  deciding  when  these  projects  are 
going  to  be  complete?  Who  is  responsible? 
Can  the  ministers  get  their  act  together? 
What  is  the  relationship  between  them?  I 
understand  they  are  supposed  to  set  the 
overall  priorities.  MTC  is  supposed  to  make 
recommendations  to  help  make  those  priori- 
ties, and  then  the  minister  is  supposed  to 
appropriate  the  moneys  and  turn  it  over  to 
MTC  to  carry  out  the  program  he  sets.  But, 
obviously,  the  two  ministers  are  not  on  the 
same  wavelength  with  regard  to  the  bypass 


4338 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


from  Highways  144  to  17.  They  are  at  least 
a  year  apart.  It  is  interesting  the  minister 
would  say  something  one  day  and  the  very 
same  day  a  letter  would  be  received  from 
the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Commu- 
nications saying  something  very  different. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  You  have  not  been 
briefed!  well  enough. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  can  get  the  letter  the 
member  for  Sudbury  East  received.  He 
would  be  quite  willing  to  send  it  down.  I 
would  read  it.  I  do  not  want  to  prolong  it, 
but  I  understand  Mr.  Tom  Diavies,  the 
mayor  of  Walden,  is  quite  upset  about  this 
discrepancy  and  is  very  concerned  about  the 
whole  contradiction.  So  here  we  have  another 
contradiction— in  this  case  the  contradiction 
between  the  two  ministers. 

I  would  also  like  to  refer  to  two  other 
matters  the  minister  raised  in  his  leadoff 
statement.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  then 
criticized  me  for  not  raising  them  in  my 
leadbff.  One  Was  the  Hornepayne  town 
centre  project.  The  minister  may  know  that 
a  week  ago  Saturday  I  was  at  the  opening 
of  one  portion  of  it,  although  they  have  not 
got  permission  yet  for  occupancy;  there  is 
some  problem  with  the  fire  marshal.  At  any 
rate,  I  understand  his  ministry  has  an- 
nounced a  further  contribution  to  the  project 
in  the  range  of  something  like  $300,000,  and 
another  $100,000  from  CN,  to  complete  it. 
Can  he  indicate  what  the  final  capital  cost 
will  be?  I  understand  of  that  $300,000  ap- 
proximately $100,000  is  a  commitment  to 
assist  with  operating  costs  over  the  first  two 
years-$60,000  the  first  year  and  $40,000  the 
second  year— because  there  is  a  projected 
deficit. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Generous,  eh? 

Mr.  Wildman:  Yes,  I  welcome  the  assist- 
ance. One  thing  I  am  concerned  about, 
though,  is  what  happens  after  the  first  two 
years?  If  there  is  a  projected  deficit  and  the 
ministry  is  going  to  provide  $60,000  the  first 
year  and  $40,000  the  second  year,  what 
happens  the  third  year?  I  know  that  may 
sound  like  looking  a  gift-horse  in  the  mouth, 
but  I  am  concerned  about  the  future  and 
what  it  means  in  terms  of  the  finances  of 
the  community. 

As  the  minister  may  know,  Hornepayne  is 
in  a  serious  financial  situation;  that  is  why 
his  ministry  has  largely  contributed,  as  well 
as  the  fact  that  he  wants  to  see  the  centre 
go  ahead.  There  is  some  concern  about  the 
curling  rink  and  the  airport,  and  a  rather 
serious  concern  about  Canada  Mortgage  and 


Housing  Corporation  end  the  use  of  funds 
that  were  appropriated  for  a  certain  matter. 
I  understand  the  Ministry  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs  is  involved  with  that  and  is 
going  into  Hornepayne  in  the  last  couple  of 
weeks  of  November  to  try  to  straighten  out 
the  finances  of  the  municipality.  In  that  case, 
I  would  like  to  find  out  the  minister's  rela- 
tionship with  the  Ministry  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs  on  the  future  of  Hornepayne. 

The  minister  also  raised  the  matter  of 
Missanabie  and  pointed  to  that  as  an  ex- 
ample of  how  his  ministry  responds  to  the 
concerns  of  small  communities,  and  how 
they  co-ordinate  all  the  other  agencies,  in 
this  case,  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources, 
the  Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
and  so  on.  But  the  one  thing  he  ignored  was 
the  fact  that  the  pipe  that  was  purchased 
more  than  a  year  ago  by  this  ministry  to 
extend  the  water  line  on  an  emergency  basis 
to  provide  a  water  supply  for  the  community 
is  still  sitting  in  a  pile  in  Missanabie. 

How  anyone  could  point  to  that  as  a  great 
achievement,  I  fail  to  understand— an  ex- 
penditure of  something  like  $30,000,  and  the 
project  is  not  complete.  Now  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs  is  refusing  to  go  ahead  with 
any  further  work,  saying  it  committed  itself 
only  to  providing  a  water  supply  for  the 
community  for  one  winter  and,  since  that 
winter  is  now  over  and  nobody  went  without 
water,  it  fulfilled  its  commitment.  Frankly,  it 
is  pure  luck.  They  did  not  resolve  the  tech- 
nical problem.  It  cost  a  lot  more  than  they 
expected,  and  they  were  not  willing  to  pro- 
vide the  extra  moneys  that  were  required. 

I  understand  that  the  local  residents  of  the 
community  have  said  they  want  to  apply 
through  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board/  to  be- 
come an  improvement  district.  I  understand 
it  is  the  position  of  both  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs  and  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  (Mr.  Wells)  that  they 
would  rather  the  community  would  go  the 
route  of  a  local  services  board.  The  com- 
munity has  rejected  that,  largely  because  it 
anticipates  that  the  Renabie  Mine  will  be  re- 
opening this  summer.  The  president  of  the 
company  has  indicated  it  will  be  reopening 
and  employing  between  80  and  100  people. 
They  wish  to  be  an  improvement  district, 
they  hope  with  their  boundaries  including 
that  property,  so  they  will  have  a  tax  base 
and  they  will  be  able  to  resolve  some  of 
their  problems  through  being  able  to  levy 
taxes. 

The  Ministry  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs,   I   understand   on   the   advice  of  the 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4339 


Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs,  raised  some 
objections  with  the  OMB  to  holding  that 
hearing.  They  said  they  were  studying  it 
and  they  wished  it  to  be  postponed.  In  fact, 
they  were  not  studying  it;  they  just  did  not 
want  it  to  be  held.  When  I  phoned  them  and 
asked  if  they  could  give  me  copies  of  their 
study,  they  had  to  admit  they  had  not  done 
any  study.  But  I  understand  they  are  now  pre- 
pared to  withdraw  their  objections  to  going 
ahead  with  the  hearing,  and  I  hope  the 
OMB  will  schedule  a  hearing  and  decide 
whether  Missaniabie  should  be  an  improve- 
ment district.  Whatever  is  decided,  I  hope 
we  can  move  to  resolving  the   problems. 

If  I  were  minister,  I  would  hardly  point 
to  Missanabie  as  a  great  example  of  a 
response  by  this  ministry  to  the  problems 
of  a  small  community.  To  purchase  pipe, 
and  then  not  even  to  install  it  after  a  full 
year,  to  commit  oneself  to  improving  a 
water  system  and  after  a  year  not  to  have 
even  cleaned  out  the  tank,  is  hardly  an 
example  of  swift  action  by  this  ministry  to 
respond  to  the  needs  of  a  community.  We 
are  just  lucky  it  was  not  a  harder  winter 
last  year,  or  we  would  have  had  major  prob- 
lems. 

Interestingly,  as  the  minister  may  be 
aware,  there  is  a  serious  attempt  to  resolve 
difficulties  and  to  provide  amenities  and 
services  to  one  other  riding  in  my  commun- 
ity; that  is,  White  River.  The  local  major 
employer,  Abitibi-Price,  is  co-operating.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  Abitibi-Price  has  hired  a 
consulting  firm,  called  Robb  Ogilvie  Associ- 
ates, which  has  brought  together  the  local 
community,  not  only  the  municipal  officials 
but  also  private  citizens,  local  service  clubs 
and  representatives  of  a  number  of  minis- 
tries, including  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs,  the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Recrea- 
tion, and  so  on.  They  are  working  together 
to  bring  about  a  number  of  changes  in 
White  River— one  being  the  building  and 
financing  of  a  recreation  centre— looking  into 
the  housing  problem  and  the  problem  of 
other  amenities  and  services,  to  try  to  make 
it  a  more  attractive  community  to  new  em- 
ployees coming  in,  so  they  will  stay  there. 

3:40  p.m. 

My  only  question  for  this  minister  is  why 
they  had  to  hire  a  private  consultant.  Why 
is  his  ministry  not  doing  the  very  same  sort 
of  thing?  That  is  what  he  is  supposed  to  be 
doing;  at  least  that  is  what  he  tells  us.  Why 
is  his  ministry  not  coming  in  and  taking 
hold  of  the  reins  and  bringing  all  those 
various    local    groups    and    ministry    officials 


together  to  bring  about  developments,  as  is 
being  done  in  White  River,  but  in  this  case 
is  being  done  largely  by  the  private  sector? 

I  am  not  too  concerned  about  Abitibi- 
Price  having  to  pay  Robb  Ogilvie,  but  did 
they  have  to  do  it  that  way?  Why  did  the 
Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  not  take  hold 
of  the  whole  issue?  The  point  is,  they  only 
went  to  Robb  Ogilvie  after  they  got  nowhere 
for  years  in  trying  to  bring  about  the 
developments  they  are  looking  at. 

If  one  looks  at  an  example,  the  recreation 
centre  is  a  10-year  ongoing  matter  that 
was  not  being  pushed  until  they  brought 
someone  in— to  use  the  minister's  own 
arguments,  "What  you  need  is  the  impetus 
of  someone  who  can  bring  all  the  groups 
together  and  co-ordinate  them  and  put  some 
initiative  there."  Frankly,  in  an  ironic  way 
the  experience  of  White  River  is  an  example 
of  what  the  minister  claims  is  necessary  for 
small  communities  in  northern  Ontario.  What 
is  so  ironic  about  it  is  that  his  ministry  is 
not  doing  it;  it  is  a  private  consultant. 

Last,  I  would  like  to  raise  a  concern  about 
French-language  services.  The  minister  knows 
I  sent  him  a  letter  this  fall  asking  him  how 
the  government  would  be  implementing  the 
commitment  made  by  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
at  the  first  ministers'  conference  to  provide 
French-language  services  in  areas  where 
numbers  warrant.  I  was  referring  especially 
to  social  services  and  to  services  to  children. 
I  received  a  reply  from  the  minister  in  which 
he  said:  "As  you  know,  some  of  my  colleagues 
in  cabinet  have  announced  French-language 
policy  for  their  ministries  with  specific  meas- 
ures for  the  improvement  of  francophone  serv- 
ices throughout  northern  Ontario.  More  re- 
cently my  colleague  the  Honourable  Keith 
Norton,  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services,  reaffirmed  a  French-language  serv- 
ices policy  for  his  ministry." 

I  wonder  what  kind  of  consultation  went  on 
between  whoever  wrote  this  letter  for  the 
minister  and  the  Ministry  of  Community  and 
Social  Services.  The  Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services  did,  in  fact,  announce 
French-language  services  for  children— a 
$400,000  fund  for  northern  Ontario-but  he 
specifically  excluded  Algoma,  of  which  fact 
the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  seems  to  be 
unaware. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  goes  on  to  say:  "I 
have  been  advised  that  the  social  services 
representatives  servicing  that  area  all  work 
out  of  the  office  at  55  Broadway  Avenue  in 
Wawa.  This  office  is  staffed  full-time  by  a 
fully  bilingual  clerical  receptionist  who  pro- 


4340 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


vides  services  to  general  welfare  assistance, 
family  benefits,  children's  aid  and  probation 
and  after-care  workers  located  in  Wawa." 

Hip,  hip,  hurrah!  We  have  a  clerk  who 
is  bilingual  in  Wawa.  The  Wawa  office  serves 
an  area  from  White  River  to  Homepayne 
—about  120  miles  in  one  direction— to  Mis- 
sanabie— about  70  to  75  miles  in  the  other 
direction.  I  would  like  to  know  if  this  clerk 
travels  with  the  social  workers  who  go  to 
serve  those  areas?  Especially,  does  she  travel 
with  the  social  worker  who  goes  to  Dubreuil- 
ville,  which  is  approximately  55  miles  from 
Wawa  and  whose  social  worker  does  not 
speak  French?  As  the  minister  knows  since 
he  has  visited  that  community,  95  per  cent  of 
the  people  in  Dubreuilville  are  francophones, 
and  a  large  majority  of  them  are  unilingual 
French-speaking.  A  clerk  in  an  office  in  Wawa 
hardly  serves  French-language  people  in 
northern  Algoma. 

I  would  like  to  know  what  kind  of  advice 
this  minister  gives  to  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  and  what  kind 
of  advice  he  gets  from  that  ministry.  Ob- 
viously, whoever  phoned  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  to  get  some  as- 
sistance to  answer  this  letter— because  I  am 
sure  that  is  how  it  went— was  not  informed 
they  had  excluded  Algoma  when  they  made 
their  announcement  of  a  $400,000  fund  for 
French-language  services  to  children  in  north- 
ern Ontario. 

What  I  am  really  asking  is,  does  this 
ministry  get  involved  in  policy  development 
for  serving  the  north?  Or  does  it  simply  phone 
them  up  and  say:  "We  have  a  request  for 
something?  Can  you  tell  us  what  to  reply?" 
I  would  appreciate  if  the  minister  could 
respond. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might 
respond  to  the  member,  I  must  say  I  am 
pleased  he  is  taking  an  interest  in  his  own 
particular  area.  I  sensed  a  lack  of  apprecia- 
tion for  what  has  been  accomplished  in  many 
areas  of  his  riding. 

I  am  glad  I  have  on  the  record  all  those 
great  things  we  have  been  doing  in  the  riding 
of  Algoma.  I  am  sure  before  the  estimates 
are  concluded  he  will  come  around  to  seeing 
the  magnificent  improvements  and  accom- 
plishments that  this  government  and  cer- 
tainly this  ministry  have  made  in  his  particu- 
lar riding,  in  spite  of  the  member  for  Algoma. 

Mr.  Wildman:  There  has  been  more  money 
spent  in  my  riding  since  1975  than  in  the  10 
years  prior  to  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  That  is  right.  Why 
doesn't  the  member  say  that?  Why  doesn't  he 
tell  the  people? 


Mr.  Wildman:  It  is  because  I  have  raised 
these  matters  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Those  things  have  been 
done  in  spite  of  the  member.  I  am  glad  he  has 
realized  that  we  are  doing  things  in  the  north. 

The  member  was  talking  about  our  co- 
ordinating responsibilities  as  a  northern  minis- 
try. As  he  is  very  much  aware,  we  are  not  a 
line  ministry  per  se;  that  is,  we  do  not  have 
the  technical  engineers  to  design  a  highway 
or  to  do  field  work  with  respect  to  the  de- 
velopment of  a  new  highway,  nor  do  we  have 
the  engineers  or  the  experts  to  plan  and 
develop  a  sewer  and  water  system. 

That  is  not  our  role.  Our  role  is  to  co- 
ordinate and  to  answer  to  the  special  and 
unique  needs  of  northern  Ontario.  Where  we 
identify  those  special,  unique  needs,  we  lean 
on  the  other  ministries  and  work  very  closely 
with  them  to  get  a  program  in  place  that  will 
satisfy  the  needs  of  northern  Ontario.  In  many 
instances,  that  requires  extra  funds,  which  we 
have  been  given  to  do  these  things.  We  have 
a  fund  that  can  accomplish  those  require- 
ments. A  typical  example  is  sewer  and  water 
projects.  The  member  is  very  familiar  with 
the  problems  we  have  with  sewer  and  water 
projects  in  northern  Ontario.  Not  only  do  we 
work  very  closely  with  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  in  many  instances  in  topping 
up  what  it  gives  in  normal  grants,  but  also 
we  top  up  to  make  it  possible  for  a  munic- 
ipality to  carry  out  its  responsibilities.  In 
many  instances,  that  municipality  does  not 
have  a  taxation  base  to  carry  it  under  the 
normal  program. 

We  go  a  step  further  than  that.  We  look 
at  a  particular  area:  Belle  Vallee  is  a  good 
example.  Belle  Vallee  is  a  small  community 
with  a  very  high  water  table.  The  cost  of 
putting  in  a  conventional  sewer  system  in 
that  community  would  have  been  astronomi- 
cal and  would  have  been  completely  out  of 
reach  of  that  small  community.  They  were 
anxious  to  have  a  system  in  place  they  could 
afford  and  one  that  the  government  could 
afford  to  support  and  pay  for  from  our  point 
of  view.  We  did  come  up  with  an  idea  and 
a  plan.  That  is  being  implemented  right  now 
and  the  system  is  being  constructed.  In  fact, 
I  think  it  should  be  completed  relatively 
soon.  It  is  a  low-pressure  sewage  system, 
the  first  of  its  kind  in  northern  Ontario,  at 
Belle  Vallee.  I  think  I  have  the  figures  on 
that  particular  program.  I  should  put  them 
on  the  record,  because  I  know  they  will  be 
of  interest  to  the  members. 
3:50  p.m. 

In  case  the  honourable  members  are  not 
aware  of  where  Belle  Vallee  is,  it  is  about  20 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4341 


kilometres  northeast  of  New  Liskeard.  The 
system  consists  of  a  two-compartment  septic 
tank  and  a  pump  in  each  home,  connected 
by  a  pipe  to  a  two-cell  lagoon  on  the  out- 
skirts of  the  community.  Belle  Vallee,  as  I 
pointed  out,  is  in  an  extremely  flat  area,  and  a 
conventional  gravity  feed  system  would  have 
required  very  deep  trenches  to  maintain  the 
sewage  flow  in  the  pipes.  The  low-pressure 
system  is  simple  to  operate  and  maintain  and 
requires  only  that  the  pipe  be  below  the 
frost  line.  We  contributed  about  $270,000 
for  that  particular  project,  and  the  community 
will  pay  the  balance  of  $74,230.  That  is  an 
example  of  what  we  do  in  a  very  special 
way.  Not  only  did  we  co-ordinate  it  with 
the  other  ministry,  but  also  we  assisted  in 
the  funding. 

iVnother  example,  with  regard  to  sewer  and 
water  projects,  is  at  Serpent  River.  The  mem- 
ber for  Algoma-Manitoulin  (Mr.  Lane),  my 
parliamentary  assistant,  came  to  me  with  the 
very  special  problems  that  Serpent  River  had 
as  a  small  community  on  a  plastic  pipe  sys- 
tem. They  said  to  us:  "We  do  not  want  a 
massive  steel  pipe  system,  buried  eight  or 
10  feet  in  the  ground.  We  have  been  operat- 
ing for  25  years  with  a  good,  reliable  plastic 
pipe  system.  Would  you  supplement  that  and 
improve  upon  it?"  We  said,  "Fine,  if  that  is 
what  you  want  and  it  will  work."  We  brought 
in  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment.  We  had 
some  lengthy  discussions  with  them.  Obvi- 
ously, the  engineers  are  not  taken  with  this 
type  of  a  development.  It  is,  I  suppose,  a 
little  removed  from  what  they  have  been 
used  to  or  what  their  practice  is,  because— 

Mr.  Wildman:  What  about  the  fire 
marshal?  Did  he  like  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  This  is  what  the  people 
wanted,  and  I  think  we  have  to  answer  to 
the  people's  needs,  their  requirements  and 
what  they  can  pay  for.  We  have  a  system  go- 
ing in  there  and  I  think  that  will  be  well 
on  its  way  before  the  year  is  out;  the 
honourable  member  has  nodded.  So  we  have 
two  specific  examples  as  to  how  we  co- 
ordinate in  the  sewer  and  water  area. 

The  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications is  another  with  which  we  work 
very  closely;  we  get  a  tremedous  amount  of 
co-operation.  One  matter  alone  about  which 
we  have  been  leaning  on  MTC  is  that  of 
getting  them  to  change  their  attitude  to 
paved  shoulders;  that  is  moving  ahead.  As 
you  move  across  northern  Ontario,  particu- 
larly on  Highway  17,  you  will  see  that  the 
new  requests  of  northern  Ontario  are  being 
answered;       for       example,       more      paved 


shoulders.  They  went  into  a  very  excellent 
program  of  putting  in  passing  lanes.  Now,  in 
many  areas,  they  are  finding  that  they  can  put 
in  paved  shoulders,  an  eight-foot  paved 
shoulder,  for  about  the  same  cost  as  they 
could  put  in  a  truck  passing  lane.  We  are 
looking  at  that  as  a  new  thrust  in  northern 
Ontario.  Granted,  it  will  not  apply  in 
southern  Ontario,  but  again  it  is  part  of  our 
thrust  and  part  of  our  efforts  to  answer 
specific  northern  Ontario  needs  in  a  co- 
ordinated way. 

The  honourable  member  asked  what  in- 
volvement we  have  with  the  Ministry  of 
Health  in  a  co-ordinating  role.  He  mentioned 
a  few,  such  as  bursary  program.  We  identi- 
fied very  quickly  the  need  to  come  up  with 
some  special  programs  to  encourage  doctors, 
dentists,  physiotherapists  and  other  spe- 
cialists to  move  into  northern  Ontario.  We 
went  right  to  the  heart  of  the  problem  and 
assisted  the  medical  students  on  a  two-year 
basis,  with  up  to  $5,000  a  year  for  the  last 
two  years,  on  the  express  understanding  that 
they  will  go  to  northern  Ontario.  This  is  a 
Northern  Affairs  thrust,  one  we  are  paying 
for  through  the  budget  of  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs,  and  one  on  which  you  are 
asked  to  vote  today. 

Medical  clinics— the  honourable  member 
knows  our  new  thrust  in  medical  clinics. 
Again,  this  is  in  co-operation  with  the  Minis- 
try of  Health,  because  they  have  to  approve 
it,  they  are  the  line  people,  the  experts  in 
that  particular  field  but  we  identify  the 
special  need  in  northern  Ontario.  So  we 
came  up  with  a  program  by  which  we  would 
assist  those  municipalities  wanting  to  de- 
velop a  medical  clinic  so  that  they  could 
attract  a  doctor  or  a  dentist.  We  would  assist 
with  up  to  two  thirds  of  the  cost,  and  it 
varies;  it  is  not  a  flat  two  thirds,  but  up  to 
two  thirds  of  the  capital  cost  paid  on  the 
express  understanding  that  the  doctors  using 
the  clinic  would  pay  the  ongoing  local  rent, 
which  they  have  all  accepted. 

There  is  the  dental  program,  the  mobile 
dental  clinics  that  we  established  in  northern 
Ontario,  again  in  co-operation  and  co- 
ordination with  the  Ministry  of  Health. 
There  is  the  air  ambulance  system  on  which 
we  are  working  very  closely  with  the  Minis- 
try of  Health  right  now. 

Mr.  Wildman:  What  about  OHIP? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  That  is  part  of  the 
whole  package,  one  part  in  which  we  have 
had  a  thrust.  Certainly,  I  do  not  want  to 
make  any  announcement  here  of  what  is  go- 
ing to  happen.  The  line  ministry  does  have 


4342 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  responsibility.  But  I  can  assure  the  hon- 
ourable member  that  we  have  the  thrust, 
that  we  have  the  input,  and  that  we  meet 
regularly.  Our  staff  members  from  the  minis- 
ter, the  deputy  minister,  and  the  assistant 
deputy  minister  down  to  our  directors,  are 
in  constant  contact  with  their  counterparts  in 
other  ministries  to  get  that  northern  Ontario 
thrust  into  their  decision-making  process, 
and  the  system  is  really  working. 

About  the  telemedic  issue,  to  which  the 
honourable  member  referred,  my  assistant 
deputy  ministers  are  meeting  with  the  offi- 
cials of  that  group  to  see  how  they  and  we 
as  a  ministry  can  assist  in  the  delivery  of 
that  system.  I  was  very  interested  in  his 
proposal.  He  indicated  to  me  that  much  of 
it  would  be  in  the  private  sector— there  is  no 
question  about  that-^but  he  certainly  wanted 
to  get  the  support  of  this  government  and 
this  ministry.  We  are  very  interested  in  that 
as  a  way  to  meet  the  needs  of  northern 
Ontario,  and  I  know  my  colleague  the  Min- 
ister of  Health  shares  my  view  in  that  field. 

The  honourable  member  spoke  about  tho 
integrated  senior  citizens'  unit  at  Espanola. 
I  want  to  place  on  the  record  my  personal 
congratulations  to  the  member  for  Algoma- 
Manitoulin,  my  parliamentary  assistant.  It 
was  his  idea.  He  brought  the  thing  forward 
and  has  pursued  it  relentlessly  through  the 
various  levels  of  government.  He  sold  the 
idea  locally  and  that  is  most  important.  He 
sold  it  to  the  private  sector— there  will  be 
involvement  of  the  private  sector. 

Dr.  Fergal  Nolan  of  my  ministry  is  part 
of  that  overall  group  which  is  working  with 
the  various  other  ministries.  I  understand 
the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Develop- 
ment (Mrs.  Birch)  is  doing  the  steering  of 
this  program  and  we  can  expect  something 
relatively  soon  on  the  status  of  that  facility. 
I  think  it  will  be  a  forerunner. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Hornepayne  too? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes.  I  think  that  is  an 
excellent  program.  In  fact,  I  met  with  the 
director  just  a  couple  of  days  ago  and  he 
went  to  some  length  to  assure  me  the 
facility  they  have  in  Hornepayne  adjacent 
to  the  Hornepayne  Hospital  is  in  fairly  good 
condition.  I  think  he  is  spending  another 
$20,000  this  year  fixing  up  the  roof  or  doing 
the  skirting  around  the  bottom  of  it.  But  he 
thinks  he  is  there  for  another  three,  four  or 
five  years  before  he  needs  any  major  capital 
expenditure.  He  was  very  pleased;  they  are 
well  set  up;  and  he  was  very  complimentary 
to  this  government  for  what  we  have  done 
in  that  field.   I  am  looking  forward  to  the 


day  when  we  can  turn  the  sod  in  Espanola 
for  that  new  and  exciting  facility,  which  will 
bring  together  three  different  levels  of  serv- 
ice to  the  senior  citizens  in  that  area.  I  can 
assure  you  many  communities  in  northern 
Ontario  will  be  watching  what  transpires: 
there. 

Another  area  where  we  are  in  a  co- 
ordinating role  with  the  Ministry  of  Energy 
is  the  Shell  Woodex  plant  uo  at  Hearst.  That 
plant  and  that  idea  have  been  around  for 
some  considerable  time,  but  it  was  not  until 
the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  got  involved 
to  'bring  the  sewer  and  water  facilities  to 
the  plant  that  it  really  took  off.  We  are 
working  very  closely  with  the  Ministrv  of 
Energy  and1  with  the  private  sector  in  making 
these  things  happen.  So  while  we  may  not 
be  the  line  ministry  making  all  these  an- 
nouncements, we  are  behind  the  scenes 
pressing  the  right  buttons  so  that  they  do 
happen. 

Speaking  about  a  co-ordinating  role,  I 
think  one  of  the  other  members  asked  about 
the  policy  analysis  branch  of  my  ministry. 
He  asked  just  what  their  responsibility  was 
and  is.  There  is  a  small  group  in  my 
ministry  located  here  in  Toronto  and  it 
monitors  on  behalf  of  my  ministry  what 
goes  in  all  the  other  cabinet  committees 
and  in  management  board,  in  addition  to 
cabinet.  So  they  know  what  is  going  on  in 
the  Justice  policy  field;  they  monitor  what 
is  coming  forward  in  the  Social  Develop- 
ment policy  field  and  the  Resources  De- 
velopment policy  field;  they  know  what  is 
going  on  in  management  board,  which  I 
try  to  keep  on  top  of. 

So  it  is  a  massive  job.  It  is  not  like  an 
ordinary  ministry  where  you  are  just  in- 
volved with  one  section  of  cabinet.  This  is  a 
unique  situation  where  my  ministry  is  in- 
volved in  all  those.  It  takes  a  tremendous 
amount  of  effort  keeping  on  top  of  the  issues 
on  an  ongoing  day-to-day  basis  to  see  what 
is  brought  forward.  Then,  of  course,  we 
initiate  things  that  we  want  to  see  happen 
and  that  is  all  put  into  the  system.  It  is  a 
very  complex  and  very  interesting  ministry, 
indeed,  that  sees  and  makes  sure  things  really 
happen. 

4  p.m. 

The  member  for  Algoma  mentioned  King 
Mountain  and  the  Department  of  Regional 
Economic  Expansion  proposal.  I  think  he  is 
aware  this  government  is  very  sympathetic 
to  the  DREE  proposal.  I,  along  with  my 
colleague  from  Sault  Ste.  Marie  (Mr.  Ramsay), 
made   an   extensive  flight   over   the  possible 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4343 


location  of  the  facility.  It  is  a  different  and 
exciting  area.  The  potential  is  unlimited  as 
it  relates  to  that  type  of  year-round  facility 
just  north  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie.  The  member 
attached  it  to  the  DREE  proposal  and  he  is 
quite  right  in  doing  that. 

It  was  discussed  last  week  in  a  general 
way.  The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 
(Mr.  Grossman),  who  was  the  chairman  at 
the  Ottawa  meeting,  made  it  a  pointed  thrust 
with  regard  to  destination  facilities  in  north- 
ern Ontario,  King  Mountain  being  one  of 
them.  We  are  anxious  to  start  talking  and 
get  moving  on  a  massive  tourism  package.  We 
are  not  looking  at  a  small  package;  we  are 
looking  at  a  package  of  about  $100  million. 
King  Mountain  could  fit  quite  easily  into  that 
package  if  we  are  successful. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Are  you  going  to  be  able 
to  make  an  announcement  on  your  attitude 
towards  involvement  with  King  Mountain 
whether  or  not  the  DREE  proposal  is  reached 
before  the  end  of  the  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  would  not  be  making 
an  announcement  with  regard  to  King  Moun- 
tain. I  am  sure  my  colleague  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  will. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Is  he  the  lead  minister  in 
negotiations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  his  would  be  the 
lead  ministry  in  that  field. 

We  will  certainly  be  supporting  him  as  he 
goes  on  with  DREE  and  as  he  moves  ahead 
because  we  are  very  interested  and  we  are 
giving  him  all  the  help  and  assistance  we 
can  from  our  field.  That  is  in  the  works. 
Following  our  meeting  in  Ottawa,  I  would 
have  to  admit  I  am  not  excited  about  the 
quick  acceptance  of  a  tourism  package  of 
that  size. 

Mr.  Wildman:  They  said  it  would  take  four 
months. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  would  like  to  see  it 
happen  in  four  months.  That  is  more  opti- 
mistic than  I  would  be,  but  we  all  have  our 
feelings  and  assumptions. 

The  honourable  member  made  some  refer- 
ence to  the  development  of  a  bypass  and 
Highway  144.  We  will  call  it  the  north-south 
bypass  in  Sudbury.  I  think  he  did  get  some 
direction  from  the  member  for  Sudbury  (Mr. 
Germa).  I  regret  he  did  not  get  all  the  facts 
right  or  all  the  information  because  he  is  a 
little  twisted  around.  He  said  this  would  be 
completed  in  1982  and  somebody  else  said 
1981.  It  is  not  going  to  be  completed  then; 
it  is  just  going  to  be  started.  The  land 
acquisition  is  complete  and  the  design  work 


and   environmental   studies   are   nearly  com- 
plete. I  said  this  in  Sudbury  last  Thursday. 

Mr.  Wildman:  You  said  1981  and  slowed 
it  to  1982. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No,  there  has  been  no 
mention  of  dates  at  all.  I  wrote  the  regional 
chairman.  It  is  in  the  planned  project  of  the 
Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions. When  we  took  it  over,  it  was  in  1982. 
It  is  still  in  1982.  I  hope  we  can  advance 
that  period  but  I  am  not  sure.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  funding  will  be  for  next  year.  I  do 
know  from  my  many  visits  to  the  Sudbury 
area  there  is  anxiety  to  get  on  with  it.  We 
are  as  anxious  as  anybody  else.  I  said  in 
Sudbury  that  is  a  government  commitment 
and  it  will  be  lived  up  to.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  fuss  is  all  about.  I  suspect  it  might 
have  been  before  a  certain  day— November 
10.  That  might  have  stirred  things  up  to  get 
a  little  publicity. 

As  far  as  we  are  concerned  nothing  has 
changed.  I  hope  the  funding  will  be  there  to 
get  on  with  it  and,  if  we  get  some  extra 
funding  I  would  like  to  see  some  kind  of 
start  in  1981,  but  I  cannot  at  this  time  make 
any  firm  commitment  that  will  happen. 
Nevertheless,  I  am  sympathetic  to  that. 

The  member  made  reference  to  Horne- 
payne  and  I  was  pleased  he  recognized  the 
generous  assistance  we  are  giving  to  that 
municipality.  I  want  to  compliment  my  own 
staff  in  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  for 
their  negotiations  with  Canadian  National 
Railways  in  coming  up  with  $100,000  from 
the  CNR  towards  that  medical  centre,  which 
will  cost  about  $300,000.  The  normal  contri- 
bution is  two  to  one,  as  I  mentioned  earlier 
in  my  remarks.  We  will  put  up  $200,000 
capital. 

I  might  say  that  they  were  extremely  co- 
operative and  our  dealings  with  them  have 
been  exceptionally  good.  It  was  very  heart- 
warming to  see  them  respond  in  a  very  posi- 
tive way  in  answer,  of  course,  to  the  need  of 
that  municipality  and  they  put  their  dollars 
on  the  line. 

As  the  member  correctly  pointed  out,  we 
will  be  assisting  in  the  operation  for  the 
next  two  years.  The  projections  are  that  after 
that  it  will  carry  itself  so  there  won't  be  a 
large  burden  on  the  community  and  we  look 
forward  to  that.  I  think  the  development  of 
the  Hornepayne  town  centre  complex  is 
unique  in  the  government.  I  don't  know  of 
any  other  facility— I  would  ask  the  honour- 
able members  to  look  around  and  see  if  that 
has  ever  been  carried  on,  not  only  with  the 


4344 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


private  sector  but  with  all  levels  of  govern- 
ment. 

I  suppose  you  might  say  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs  is  starting  to  become  very 
adept  and  very  able  in  that  particular  effort, 
because  we  saw  it  happen  with  the  develop- 
ment of  Ontario  North  Now,  where  not  only 
the  various  levels  and  various  ministries  of 
the  government  became  involved  with  their 
expertise  and  our  financial  commitment,  but 
the  private  sector  and  the  municipalities  also 
became  involved.  Our  co-ordinating  role  is 
really  there;  it  is  very  real;  it  is  very  positive 
and  it  is  very  easy  to  identify  and  the  results 
are  starting  to  flow  from  it. 

The  honourable  member  made  some 
comment  about  Missanabie.  I  would  have  to 
say  to  the  honourable  member  at  the  outset 
that  I  just  wonder  where  he  would  have 
gone  if  Northern  Affairs  hadn't  been  around 
to  answer  to  that  particular  need  at  Missa- 
nabie, because— 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  went  to  every  ministry  in 
the  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  That  is  exactly  right, 
but  who  responded?  Our  ministry  responded 
as  quickly  as  possible.  We  came  up  with  the 
funds  that  were  required.  Granted,  the  water 
level  didn't  drop  as  low  as  most  people  had 
anticipated  so  that  the  projected  water 
problem  did  not  develop,  but  nevertheless 
we  were  there.  We  had  purchased  the  par- 
ticular pine  to  which  the  honourable  member 
made  reference;  the  pipe  is  there  and  I 
would  have  to  say  to  the  member  there 
could  be  a  little  more  self  help  in  Missanabie 
by  the  people. 

I  think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  we 
offered  the  local  services  board  an  excellent 
route  they  could  have  used  but  they  chose 
not  to,  for  some  reasons  of  which  I  am  not 
aware.  It  would  have  been  a  first  step  had 
they  gone  into  the  local  services  board  be- 
cause the  CPR  did  not  want  to  deal  with 
anybody  who  did  not  have  a  legal  identity. 
I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  they  were  willing  to 
turn  over  the  water  system  to  a  legal  body, 
and  until  they  form  some  form  of  a  re- 
sponsible group  it  is  very  difficult  to  deal 
with  them. 

Nevertheless,  our  interest,  our  concerns  for 
Missanabie  have  not  diminished;  we  will  be 
there  when  they  need  us.  I  say  that  to  you 
in  all  sincerity,  because  that  is  our  responsi- 
bility. The  local  staff  were  there,  johnny-on- 
the-spot  when  they  were  needed  in  answer 
to  their  particular  needs.  It  was  a  very 
unique  situation,  one  that  you  wouldn't  have 


answered  as  you  correctly  point  out,  by 
another  ministry.  You  might  even  say  it  is  a 
little  ad  hockish,  but  nevertheless  it  answers 
the  needs  of  the  special  problems  of  northern 
Ontario. 

The  honourable  member  made  some  refer- 
ence to  the  delivery  of  French  services.  As  I 
pointed  out  in  my  recent  correspondence  to 
him,  we  have  a  number  of  staff  where  num- 
bers warrant,  as  he  correctly  pointed  out,  to 
deliver  services  in  the  French  language  right 
across  northern  Ontario.  When  we  identify  a 
problem  we  make  those  feelings  known  to 
other  ministries,  which  we  have  done  and 
will  continue  to  do  because  we  do  think  this 
government  is  committed  to  provide  those 
services  in  a  French-language  program  where 
numbers  warrant.  We  have  a  number  of  our 
people  located  in  the  Sault  Ste.  Marie  and 
the  Wawa  areas  who  are  very  fluent  in  the 
French  language,  so  I  feel  very  comfortable 
from  a  ministry  point  of  view  that  we  can 
deliver  the  services  right  across  northern 
Ontario  where  numbers  warrant,  where  people 
warrant. 

Obviously,  in  the  town  of  Kenora  or  even 
in  Sioux  Lookout,  there  really  is  no  need, 
but  there  is  a  need  in  Timmins  and  Hearst 
and  Iroquois  Falls  and  Sturgeon  Falls,  and 
other  areas,  and  our  staff- 
Mr.  Wildman:  And  Dubreuilville? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  And  Dubreuilville,  yes, 
we  will  certainly  follow  up  on  that. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  pretty  well 
winds  up  the  response  to  comments  the 
honourable  members  made.  I  would  like  to 
take  just  a  moment  to  send  over  to  the 
honourable  members- 
Mr.  Wildman:   More  tomatoes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No.  I  think  before  we 
wound  up  last  session  we  talked  about  peat 
and  my  visit  to  Ireland. 

Many  of  us  talk  about  peat  as  an  energy 
source  or  as  a  product  that  could  be  used  in 
a  horticultural  sense,  but  a  lot  of  us  have 
not  seen  what  it  is.  I  have  in  my  hand  raw 
peat.  This  is  very  similar  to  what  is  in  north- 
ern Ontario.  As  you  know,  we  have  identified 
something  like  67  locations  in  northern  On- 
tario with  an  estimated  resource  in  the 
amount  of  about  30  billion  tons  of  peat.  In 
the  next  few  years  we  will  see  a  lot  of 
interest  being  focused  on  this  particular 
source  of  energy. 

4:10  p.m. 

In  my  left  hand  I  have  a  sample  of  a 
briquette.  This  is  just  an  end  off  the  bri- 
quettes that  are  made  in  Ireland.  All  that  is 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4345 


taken  out  is  the  water  content.  It  is  mixed 
in  a  very  general  way.  There  are  16  different 
layers  in  the  natural  peat  that  is  taken  off 
the  field.  These  are  all  blended  and  then  put 
into  a  dryer  where  85  per  cent  of  the  mois- 
ture is  taken  off.  It  is  then  compressed'.  It  is 
very  valuable  as  a  fuel  for  fireplaces  in 
Ireland.  It  is  very  low  in  ash  and  very  low 
in  the  pollution  count  in  S02.  I  will  pass 
these  over  to  the  members  so  they  can  look 
at  them  as  a  matter  of  interest. 

Mr.  Bolan:  What  about  the  heat  from  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  The  British  thermal  unit 
content  is  very  comparable.  In  fact,  our  re- 
search in  Ontario  indicates  that  it  equals 
that  of  soft  coal  or  lignite,  so  the  potential  is 
very  real  and  positive. 

Vote  701  agreed  to. 

On  vote  702,  project  development  and 
community  relations  program: 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  have  a  short  question. 
Every  month  I  receive  the  ministry's  news- 
paper in  which  the  minister  explains  all  the 
things  that  are  being  done  in  northern  On- 
tario by  his  ministry.  The  latest  one  is  for 
October.  In  it  were  all  the  pictures  of  the 
northern  affairs  officers  across  northern  On- 
tario. It  is  interesting  that  a  couple  of  people 
in  my  riding  are  also  on  the  mailing  list  of 
the  Unorganized  Communities  Association  of 
Northern  Ontario  East.  They  received  the 
October  edition  from  the  Ministry  of  North- 
ern Affairs  from  UCANO.  I  was  wondering 
who  paid  for  that  mailing.  Was  it  the  Minis- 
try of  Northern  Affairs  or  was  it  UCANO? 
Could  the  minister  explain  what  the  reason 
was  for  having  UCANO  send  out  the  ministry 
newsletter  as  well  as  its  own  community  re- 
lations department  news  brief? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  am  pleased  the  mem- 
ber has  recognized  that  particular  edition  of 
our  regular  monthly  ministry  newspaper,  be- 
cause in  that  edition  we  are  honouring  the 
tenth  anniversary  of  the  northern  affairs 
branch.  I  am  pleased  to  say  I  will  be  going 
to  Sault  Ste.  Marie  tomorrow  where  all  the 
northern  affairs  officers  are  meeting  to  ex- 
tend to  them  my  congratulations  and  honour 
those  who  have  been  with  us  for  that  10-year 
period.  It  will  be  a  very  pleasant  event  in- 
deed. 

As  the  member  knows,  the  northern  affairs 
officers  are  unique  to  northern  Ontario  and 
are  accepted.  The  service  is  hailed  as  a  major 
breakthrough  for  the  delivery  of  govern- 
ment information  and  services  in  the  29 
communities  and  areas  we  serve  across  north- 
em  Ontario. 


Regarding  the  question  the  honourable 
member  has  directed  to  me  in  connection  with 
the  mailing  of  that  paper  by  the  Unorga- 
nized1 Communities  Association  of  Northern 
Ontario,  we  do  fund  UCANO.  I  think  it  is 
$25,000  a  year  for  the  northeast,  or  maybe 
it's  more  than  that  now.  We  provide  about 
$27,000  or  $28,000  a  year  to  each  of  UCANO 
East  and  UCANO  West.  I  would  expect  that 
since  those  are  so  freely  distributed  across 
northern  Ontario  they  just  took  it  upon  them- 
selves to  mail  them  to  their  membership, 
knowing  they  would  be  interested. 

We  look  after  our  own  mailing,  and  if  they 
choose  to  give  further  distribution  to  it  that 
pleases  me  tremendously.  I  think  it  is  a  good 
newspaper.  It  is  well  put  together.  It  is  very 
informative;  and  it  does  a  good  job  of  in- 
forming not  only  my  ministry  but  the  public 
as  well. 

Mh\  Wildman:  There  seems  to  be  some 
concern  underneath  the  gallery  about  the 
minister's  reply,  so  maybe  he  can  straighten 
it  out  with  his  staff. 

I  noticed  in  the  picture  of  the  northern 
affairs  officers,  there  are  quite  a  few  of  them 
who  are  in  my  riding.  It  is  rather  a  large 
riding,  but  of  course  not  as  large  as  the 
minister's.  There  is  a  new  northern  affairs 
officer  in  Iroquois  Falls.  His  name  is  Gerald 
Violette. 

I  want  to  add  my  congratulations  to  Mr. 
Violette  on  his  appointment.  I  am  surprised, 
though,  that  the  minister  did  not  at  least 
leave  him  in  Gogama  so  he  could  continue 
to  serve  the  interests  of  the  people  in  that 
community.  I  hope  if  there  was  any  contri- 
bution for  this  mailing  from  the  ministry  that 
the  minister  could  provide  me  with  that  in- 
formation. I  have  no  objection  to  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am 
pleased  the  honourable  member  has  recog- 
nized the  appointment  of  Gerald  Violette  to 
the  Northern  Affairs  staff.  As  we  all  know, 
he  was  very  active  and  very  vocal  and  led 
UCANO  East  for  a  number  of  years.  He 
did  an  excellent  job  on  behalf  of  the  unorga- 
nized communities. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  with  his 
background— I  believe  he  was  teaching  for 
a  while— he  has  a  broad  knowledge  of  north- 
ern Ontario.  With  his  involvement  in  UCANO 
he  has  become  very  familiar  with  the  many 
programs  of  this  government  and  of  this 
ministry. 

Another  appointment  I  would  like  to  recog- 
nize is  that  of  Jane  Greer.  She  has  just  moved 
—today  I  believe— to  Marathon.  She's  a  young 


4346 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


girl  from  Sioux  Lookout  who  has  come 
through  the  ranks.  We  do  not  confine  our 
appointments  to  the  male  of  the  species;  we 
mix  them  up  and  try  to  get  as  many  women 
as  possible  in  areas  where  they  show  an 
interest.  Jane  will  take  up  the  position  in 
Marathon  and  I  know  she  will  do  a  great 
job,  as  will  Gerry. 

Vote  702  agreed  to. 

On  vote  703,  northern  communities  assist- 
ance program;  item  1,  community  priorities: 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  some 
questions.  First,  though,  I  need  some  direc- 
tion. I  wonder  if  it  is  in  order  to  raise  ques- 
tions with  regard  to  funding  for  medical 
centres  under  item  1.  Is  that  all  right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Could  the  minister  give  us 
some  indication  of  what  his  ministry's  policy 
is   with   regard   to   the   funding   of  medical 
centres?  I  know  he  mentioned  it  earlier. 
4:20  p.m. 

I  know  the  ministry  has  provided  a  grant 
for  the  Cobalt  medical  centre  in  the  range 
of  $13,000  for  renovations  to  the  munic- 
ipally-owned building.  I  understand  the 
ministry  has  also  provided  $30,700  for  the 
purchase  of  equipment  for  a  dental  clinic  on 
a  shared  cost  basis  with  the  community  of 
Chapleau.  I  understand  Chapleau  is  under 
serious  financial  constraints  and  is  having 
difficulties  right  now.  That  assistance  was 
probably  very  useful,  but  could  the  minister 
give  us  some  indication  of  whether  there  is 
an  overall  policy  on  funding  by  his  ministry 
either  to  pay  the  full  cost  or  to  pay  a  portion 
of  the  cost  of  the  development  of  medical 
or  dental  clinics  in  small  communities  in 
the  north,  or  were  these  special  grants? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  moved  into  the 
area  of  assistance  to  smaller  communities  in 
the  development  of  medical  centres  follow- 
ing our  own  staff  observations  and  following 
requests  from  the  smaller  municipalities  and 
the  Minister  of  Health.  They  could  see  this 
as  a  real  need. 

In  our  initial  reviews,  we  found  each  com- 
munity was  different.  As  an  example, 
Geraldton  had  a  facility  already  built  but 
needed  $20,000  to  put  in  certain  equip- 
ment. That  is  all  it  required.  The  building 
was  there.  They  said:  "That  is  all  we  need. 
We  need  the  $20,000,  because  we  have  run 
out  the  full  length  of  our  commitment."  It 
had  difficulty  generating  those  further  funds, 
so  we  assisted. 

In  Nakina,  they  had  a  different  system. 
They  went  out  and  prevailed  upon  the  local 


timber  company  to  provide  them  with  a 
trailer.  We  assisted  that  community  by 
coming  forward  and  completing  that  trailer, 
which  is  now  a  medical  clinic. 

What  we  said  was  we  would  assist  up  to 
two  thirds  of  the  total  cost  as  to  the  type  of 
facility,  size  and  all  the  configurations  and 
everything  they  require  once  that  had  been 
approved  by  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  once 
we  had  an  opportunity  to  look  at  their 
financial  capability,  but  we  did  not  want  to 
be  fixed  firmly  to  a  two-to-one  type  of 
assistance  program.  Where  the  municipali- 
ties could  do  more  for  themselves,  with  some 
encouragement  from  us,  we  would  ask  them 
to  do  a  little  more.  It  is  not  a  fixed1  two- 
to-one  basis. 

Many  municipalities,  of  course,  are  coming 
forward  and  saying,  "Look,  we  need  two 
thirds  of  the  financial  assistance."  We  are 
working  closely  with  them  on  an  individual 
basis.  Red  Lake  has  now  received  two- to- 
one  assistance;  Chapleau  received  two-to-one; 
I  think  Rainy  River  received  two-to-one;  and 
Manitouwadge  is  receiving  two-to-one.  A  lot 
of  them  will  flesh  out  but  before  we  do  that 
we  do  not  want  to  lock  ourselves  into  a  firm, 
fixed  locked-in  policy.  We  look  at  each  re- 
quest individually  in  co-operation  and  co- 
ordination with  the  Ministry  of  Health.  We 
look  at  the  financial  capability  of  the  com- 
munity, then  work  out  a  formula  it  can  carry. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Could  the  minister  give 
us  some  indication  of  how  much  money  has 
actually  been  spent  by  the  ministry  for 
renovation  or  construction  of  medical  and 
dental  clinics  and  how  much  it  is  anticipated 
will  be  spent  in  the  next  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  don't  have  those  total 
figures  here  but  I  will  make  a  commitment 
to  get  all  those  totals  for  you. 

Mr.  Wildman:  In  that  regard  I  also  would 
like  the  minister,  if  he  could,  to  expand  on 
the  ministry's  position  with  regard  to  the 
dental  clinic  and  the  renovation  of  the 
medical  clinic  in  Dubreuilville.  I  appreciate 
assistance  is  being  provided  to  Hornepayne. 

One  of  the  major  problems  we  have  had 
in  Dubreuilville  is  it  is  very  difficult  to  get 
professional  staff  who  can  speak  French  to 
move  to  an  area.  The  local  community  and 
the  Algoma  district  health  council  has  sug- 
gested one  of  the  ways  to  make  it  more 
attractive  for  a  French-speaking  professional 
to  move  to  the  Wawa-Dubreuilville  area 
would  be  a  major  renovation  of  the  medical 
clinic  and  the  addition  of  a  dental  clinic. 

After  some  effort  we  did  obtain  a  nurse 
practitioner  for  Dubreuilville  who  is  fluently 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4347 


bilingual  and  is  doing  a  very  good  job.  But 
I  think  he  would  agree  that  with  some  capi- 
tal expenditure  it  might  make  it  a  more 
serviceable  facility,  and  make  it  easier  for 
the  doctor  who  comes  in  on  a  rotating  basis. 
Also,  it  might  make  it  more  attractive  for  a 
dentist  who  might  want  to  come  in  on  a 
rotating  basis. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  would  certainly  en- 
tertain a  request  from  that  municipality  for 
upgrading  the  present  facilities. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  have  already  talked  to 
Ed  Belfry. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Good.  I  know  the  posi- 
tive response  by  him.  Again,  the  Ministry  of 
Health  is  involved  and  with  their  concur- 
rence, of  course,  we  would  sit  down  and 
work  something  out  with  that  municipality, 
as  we  have  done  in  Geraldton  and  other 
communities.  As  you  correctly  point  out, 
one  has  to  have  the  right  type  of  atmos- 
phere. The  work  place  has  to  be  something 
a  doctor  can  be  proud  to  work  in,  where  he 
can  do  his  best  and  provide  the  services 
people  are  entitled  to. 

I  might  say  at  this  point  that  some  munic- 
ipalities have  come  forward  with  requests  for 
the  purchase  of  homes  for  doctors.  They  say, 
"Now  you  have  provided  or  helped  us  to 
provide  a  good  medical  clinic,  but  we  still 
cannot  attract  a  doctor  because  we  do  not 
have  a  decent  home  for  him."  Our  response 
up  to  this  time  has  been  that  our  priority 
across  northern  Ontario  would  be  the  de- 
velopment of  medical  clinics.  We  have  only 
a  limited  amount  of  funds.  If  they  will  bear 
with  us  we  would  like  to  answer  all  the  re- 
quests for  medical  clinics  first,  then  the  next 
time  around,  if  that  requirement  is  still  there, 
we  would  have  a  look  at  it.  But  we  have 
encouraged  municipalities  to  go  into  long- 
term  mortgages  and  loans  from  banks  and 
Canada  Mortgage  and  Housing  Corporation 
and  develop  those  homes  for  doctors  them- 
selves. The  doctors  would  surely  pay  the 
ongoing  rent. 

Mr.  Philip:  Are  you  suggesting  that  doc- 
tors should  live  in  public  housing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  It  is  not  public  hous- 
ing. I  do  not  think  they  are  looking  for  pub- 
lic housing  at  all.  They  are  looking  for 
decent  housing  that  will  add  to  the  comfort 
of  their  jobs  in  northern  Ontario.  The  doctors 
I  have  spoken  to  are  not  looking  for  any 
handouts  or  giveaways.  They  say:  "Give  me 
a  home.  I  will  pay  the  going  rent."  We  have 
made  that  known  to  the  various  municipali- 
ties. I  just  make  that  as  a  point. 


Getting  back  to  the  appointment  of  Gerry 
Violette,  it  has  been  properly  pointed  out 
to  me  that  Gerry  did  compete.  It  was  a 
province-wide  competition.  I  just  want  to 
put  that  on  the  record,  make  it  clear  and 
precise  that  he  did  compete  with  other 
aspirants  for  that  job.  When  we  have  an 
opening  for  a  northern  affairs  officer,  the 
applications  flow  in  from  literally  every 
other  department  of  government  and  from 
many  people  in  the  private  sector,  because 
it  is  a  unique  job,  a  very  satisfying  job.  As 
we  celebrate  our  tenth  anniversary,  I  am 
particularly  pleased  that  many  of  the  origi- 
nals are  still  around,  which  shows  me  it  is 
a  very  satisfying  career.  I  am  looking  for- 
ward to  tomorrow  night,  as  I  said  earlier. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Following  along  on  the  lines 
of  health  services,  I  brought  to  the  ministry's 
attention  the  plight  of  the  people  of  Thome, 
some  40  miles  from  North  Bay,  who  are 
having  some  difficulty  in  obtaining  medical 
services  for  that  community.  I  pointed  out 
that  everything  had  been  set  in  motion  to 
have  a  doctor  attend  in  Thorne.  This  was  co- 
ordinated through  St.  Joseph's  Hospital.  The 
only  problem  we  had  was  where  the  services 
would  be  rendered.  I  am  wondering  if  the 
minister  has  anything  to  report  at  this  time, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was  brought  to  his 
attention  three  weeks  ago. 

I  am  informed  by  the  local  northern 
laffairs  officer  that  the  minister  is  looking  at 
the  question  of  bringing  in  a  portable  to  the 
Thorne  area;  in  fact,  the  site  has  already 
been  located.  I  am  just  wondering  if  you 
have  anything  more  concrete  to  report  to  us 
at  this  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bekirier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  did 
have  some  information  on  Thorne  land  I  have 
misplaced  it.  I  have  asked  my  staff  to  see  if 
they  can  dig  it  up  again. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Perhaps  the  minister  will  come 
to  over  the  next  while  and  inform  us. 

4:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  also 
like  to  raise  under  this  vote  the  question  of 
ongoing  operating  costs  of  various  facilities 
whose  construction  this  ministry  assists  in 
funding. 

We  have  talked  briefly  about  Hornepayne 
and  the  commitment  made  by  the  ministry 
which  I  understand  has  to  be  confirmed  by 
the  municipality's  accepting  it  at  a  meeting 
with  Mr.  Aiken  on  November  20.  The  minis- 
try has  committed  itself  to  $100,000  in  oper- 
ating costs  over  two  years  if  there  is  a 
deficit.  I  understand  one  of  the  main  reasons 


4348 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


there  is  possibly  going  to  be  a  deficit  is  the 
recreation  facility  in  the  complex,  the  swim- 
ming pool  largely.  I  understand  the  original 
agreement  signed  by  the  developer  was  that 
if  there  was  a  deficit  over  the  first  five  years, 
the  developer  would  pay  towards  it.  This  is 
now  supplementing  that  agreement. 

That  is  a  welcome  suggestion  by  the  min- 
istry. It  relates  to  a  problem  I  brought  to 
the  minister's  attention  in  September  with 
regard  to  recreational  facilities  that  have 
l^een  built  in  small  communities,  not  onlv  in 
the  north  but  all  across  Ontario  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Culture  and  Recreation,  often  with 
Wintario  funds,  Community  Recreation 
Centres  Act  grants  and  so  on. 

I  use  as  an  example  the  plight  of  the 
recreation  facility  in  Searchmont,  which  is 
just  north  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie.  It  is  a  very 
small  community  which  has  been  running  a 
deficit  for  some  time  and  which  has  a  Inrge 
loan  with  the  bank.  The  bank  has  threatened 
to  foreclose,  although  I  am  not  sure  what 
the  bank  would  do  with  it  if  it  disd  foreclose. 
The  minister's  staff  were  quite  concerned— 
I  will  emphasize  that— about  the  problem 
and  were  willing  to  look  at  it.  After  some 
consultation,  I  think,  with  the  Ministry  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  and  also  with  his 
own  staff  who  attended  a  meeting  I  also 
attended  in  Searchmont,  the  minister  wrote 
back  to  me  and  said  in  a  letter  dated  Sep- 
tember 24:  "You  will  appreciate  the  difficul- 
ties encountered  by  the  Searchmont  club  are 
not  unique  but  are  common  to  many  centres 
in  northern  and  southern  Ontario.  Although 
I  appreciate  fully  the  nature  of  this  predica- 
ment, I  must  regretfully  inform  you  that  my 
ministry  is  unable  to  assist  with  the  fund- 
ing." Then  he  goes  on  to  suggest  that  per- 
haps the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Pecreation 
would  be  able  to  provide  some  assistance. 

.That  was  quite  a  statement  because— and 
I  don't  think  I  am  reading  too  much  into  it 
—basically  what  the  minister  is  saying  is 
that  for  many,  or  at  least  a  significant 
number  of  small  communities,  not  only  in 
northern  Ontario  but  also  in  southern  On- 
tario, that  have  built  recreational  facilities 
with  moneys  they  have  obtained  from  the 
Ministry  of  Culture  and  Recreation  and  are 
now  in  financial  trouble  in  trying  to  operate 
those  facilities,  perhaps  the  Ministry  of  Cul- 
ture and  Recreation  would  be  able  to  do 
something  about  it. 

I  am  sure  the  minister  is  aware  that  the 
Ministry  of  Culture  and  Recreation  does  not 
have  any  program  for  providing  operational 
funds.  That  is  one  reason  why  his  ministry 


has  become  involved  in  such  an  intimate  way 
with  the  operation  of  the  Hornepayne  town 
centre.  I  followed  up  his  suggestion,  though, 
and  got  in  touch  with  the  Minister  of  Cul- 
ture and  Recreation.  I  got  a  rather  interest- 
ing response,  which  raises  the  question,  that 
I  pointed  to  in  the  previous  vote  of  the 
relationship  between  this  ministry  and  other 
ministries  of  the  government. 

This  is  a  letter  dated  October  17  from  the 
Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Mr. 
Baetz)  in  which  he  states:  "In  answer  to 
your  question,  I  am  quite  unaware  of  any 
small  community  in  the  province  which  is 
experiencing  financial  difficulties  as  a  direct 
result  of  receiving  capital  funding  from  my 
ministry.  All  applicants  for  a  capital  grant  are 
required  to  examine  the  operating  cost  impli- 
cations of  their  proposed  facility  development, 
and  the  applicants  must  indicate  to  the  minis- 
try their  ability  and  willingness  to  support 
these  costs." 

He  indicates  what  assistance  is  given  by 
the  ministry  in  those  calculations.  Further,  he 
says:  "My  ministry  review  of  its  capital  pro- 
grams does,  however,  examine  the  increase 
in  operating  costs  created  by  capital  con- 
struction or  expansion.  Staff  are  at  present 
devising  criteria  and  guidelines  for  a  new 
capital  program,"  and  so  on. 

In  other  words,  he  is  in  the  process,  as  we 
all  know,  of  changing  his  capital  program 
so  that  there  will  not  be  communities  in 
trouble  as  a  result  of  building  a  facility  which 
might  be  too  large  for  them  to  be  able  to 
operate  economically  and  to  be  able  to  pay 
for.  But  it  seems  to  me— and  maybe  I  am 
wrong— that  this  is  again  an  example  of  a 
direct  contradiction  between  what  this  minis- 
ter says  and  what  one  of  his  colleagues  said 
about  the  same  thing. 

How  is  it  that  this  ministry  believes  the 
Searchmont  situation  is  not  unique,  that  many 
centres  in  both  northern  and  southern  On- 
tario are  experiencing  financial  difficulties  in 
operating  centres  built  with  government  assist- 
ance, but  the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Rec- 
reation, the  line  ministry  responsible  for 
these  facilities,  does  not  know  of  any  small 
community  in  the  province  in  this  situation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  suppose  one  could 
play  on  words,  but  as  the  honourable  member 
has  pointed  out,  the  Minister  of  Culture  and 
Recreation,  to  my  knowledge,  is  looking  at 
the  problem.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind 
that  the  capital  construction  program  of  Win- 
tario was  stopped  temporarily.  I  suppose  the 
primary  reason  was  because  of  the  backlog 
of  commitments  that  had  to  be  caught  up 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4349 


until  they  were  examined.  But  it  is  of  con- 
cern, and  I  am  sure  it  is  of  concern  to  my 
colleague,  with  regard  to  the  operation  of 
these  massive  recreational  facilities. 

It  does  not  stop  at  the  ones  that  are  funded 
by  this  government.  Certainly,  the  Canada 
Games  project— and  I  had  the  opportunity  of 
touring  those  facilities  that  are  well  into  con- 
struction now  in  Thunder  Bay.  The  question 
I  asked  was,  "Who  is  going  to  pay  the  on- 
going operational  cost  of  these  facilities  in 
Thunder  Bay?"  It  was  quietly  whispered  in 
my  ear  that  the  overall  operating  costs  would 
be  in  excess  of  $80,000  a  year,  that  we  may 
be  able  to  pick  up  through  a  user  fee  charge 
$300,000  or  $400,000,  but  there  is  going  to 
be  a  shortfall  of  $400,000  or  $500,000  a 
year.  It  is  giving  them  some  concern. 

I  think  that  is  the  concern  we  were  trying 
to  express  in  our  letter  to  the  member  for 
Algoma.  It  is  a  concern  because  sometimes 
the  one-shot  capital  construction  dollars  flow 
quite  easily.  Then,  when  municipalities  are 
anxious  to  get  a  facility  in  place  and  get  to 
use  it,  the  ongoing  costs  are  pushed  down 
the  road  again  to  be  dealt  with  later.  They 
will  have  to  deal  with  them  because  it  is 
their  responsibility. 

As  an  example,  the  town  of  Geraldton 
wanted  to  develop  a  very  elaborate  recre- 
ational centre.  Our  staff  sat  down  with  the 
municipality,  went  over  the  plans  they  had 
and  changed  the  direction  considerably,  so 
that  the  town  went  out  and  bought  a  building 
off  the  rackj  so  to  speak,  rather  than  getting 
a  custom-built  facility  that  would  accelerate 
the  cost  tremendously. 

Here  again  is  an  example  of  how  we  can 
get  involved,  work  very  closely  with  a 
municipality  and  pare  down  their  overall 
capital  cost,  which  would  be  reflected  in  a 
lower  operating  cost  down  the  road.  We  are 
concerned  about  it.  It  is  something  that  the 
municipality  in  its  own  way  should  be 
responsible  for  and  be  concerned  with, 
because  it  has  that  local  responsibility  to 
make  sure  it  can  carry  it.  We  cannot  just 
keep  passing  on  the  responsibility  to  other 
levels  of  government.  We  make  it  very  clear 
to  them  when  they  are  moving  ahead  With 
these  facilities.  Even  with  the  medical 
centres,  we  tell  them  to  make  sure  they  look 
at  the  ongoing  operational  costs  because  they 
are  of  concern  to  us  and  to  them  too. 
4:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  appreciate  that  the  Min- 
ister of  Culture  and  Recreation  is  involved 
and  has  been  for  some  time  with  the  revision 
of   these    criteria.    I    hope    in   future   a   very 


small  community  will  not  get  involved  with 
a  centre  that  is  perhaps  a  little  too  elaborate. 
I  hope  they  will  build  centres  scaled  more 
to  their  ability  to  pay  the  operating  costs  but 
still  provide  them  with  a  recreational  facility 
they  will  be  able  to  use  and  that  will  be 
good  for  the  community.  I  hope  that  will 
resolve  problems  in  the  future. 

Frankly,  I  agree  with  the  minister's  posi- 
tion. I  do  not  agree  with  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation.  There  are  a  number 
of  small  communities  that  are  in  trouble  or 
may  be  in  the  future.  The  revision  of  his 
criteria  for  future  capital  expenditures  is  not 
going  to  help  those  communities.  I  would 
urge  this  minister  to  put  some  pressure  on  his 
colleague  to  try  to  look  at  the  problem  in  a 
more  realistic  way. 

The  problem  we  have  now  is  that  com- 
munities and  the  ministry,  in  good  faith,  got 
involved  in  some  facilities  that  Were  perhaps 
a  little  too  elaborate.  Maybe  they  need  to 
be  bailed  out.  I  suppose  the  ministry  is  con- 
cerned that  if  it  does  this  it  will  set  a  prece- 
dent—that in  future,  communities  that  build 
new  facilities  will  say,  "They  gave  operating 
expenses  to  such  and  such  a  community; 
therefore  we  should  get  them  too." 

Perhaps  it  could  be  done  by  saying  that 
facilities  built  prior  to  a  certain  date,  and 
where  there  are  really  serious  financial 
problems,  might  be  given  some  kind  of 
financial  assistance.  Perhaps  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs  could  get  involved  in  that 
as  well  in  small  communities  in  the  north. 

We  know  many  of  the  small  communities, 
especially  in  unorganized  areas  like  Search- 
mont,  have  very  little  ability  to  raise  operat- 
ing costs  except  by  contributions.  They  are 
doing  that,  but  sometimes  it  is  just  out  of 
range  for  them.  I  would  urge  the  minister  to 
persuade  his  colleague  to  take  another  look 
at  trying  to  resolve  these  problems. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Minister,  I  would  like  to 
set  the  stage  for  a  meeting  which  will  take 
place  on  December  10  or  11  between  offi- 
cials of  the  city  of  North  Bay,  yourself  and 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr. 
Parrott).  I  believe  the  Minister  of  Revenue 
(Mr.  Maeck)  is  also  going  to  be  there  in  his 
capacity  as  the  member  for  the  riding  adjoin- 
ing Nipissing. 

One  of  the  problems  that  will  be  discussed 
is  that  of  the  extension  of  the  sewage  treat- 
ment plant  at  North  Bay.  I  have  corresponded 
with  you  on  the  matter  and  I  am  sure  you 
are  familiar  with  it.  However,  I  would  like 
to  take  this  opportunity  to  review  it  and  see  if 
you  have  any  response  at  this  time. 


4350 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Basically  what  happened  is  that  some  years 
ago— I  believe  it  was  in  1970— the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  and  the  city  of  North  Bay 
entered  into  an  agreement  whereby  the  min- 
istry would  build  the  sewage  treatment  plant. 
Prior  to  the  plant  being  built,  discussions 
took  place  as  to  the  size  of  the  plant.  The 
city  said  it  needed  something  that  could 
handle  approximately  12  million  gallons  a 
day.  Ministry  officials  said  it  should  be  six 
million.  The  views  of  the  ministry  officials 
prevailed  and  the  smaller-sized  plant  was 
built. 

There  was  also  a  proviso  in  the  agreement 
to  the  effect  that  the  ministry  would  enter- 
tain further  submissions  by  the  city  for  an 
extension  of  the  sewage  treatment  plant, 
again  to  be  built  by  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment,  if  that  was  its  policy  at  the 
time.  We  had  this  grey  area  that  crept  into 
it  and  it  has  been  the  interpretation  of  that 
policy  that  is  the  subject  matter  of— I  will  not 
call  it  a  confrontation— the  differences  of 
opinion  that  have  arisen. 

Some  two  years  ago,  if  not  before  that, 
the  Ministry  of  Housing  put  a  freeze  on  ap- 
provals of  all  plans  of  subdivision  for  the 
city  of  North  Bay  until  such  time  as  the 
sewage  treatment  plant  was  extended  to  meet 
the  growing  requirements.  This  meant,  of 
course,  all  kinds  of  delays  for  individuals  and 
developers  who  had  plans  for  the  growth  of 
the  city.  Finally,  a  meeting  was  arranged 
between  city  officials  and  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment.  I  believe  it  was  a  year  ago, 
perhaps  a  bit  longer.  I  attended  that  meet- 
ing and  basically  by  that  time  what  had  hap- 
pened is  the  ministry  policy  had  changed 
and  instead  of  the  ministry  coming  in  and 
building  the  plant  as  well  as  maintaining  it 
and  providing  the  personnel  for  it,  the  policy 
was  that  the  plant  would  have  to  be  built 
or  expanded  by  the  city. 

There  was  a  system  of  grants  which  were 
set  up  that  would  fall  into  place  to  assist  the 
city  in  the  construction  of  the  plant.  The 
problem  is  that  the  original  expense  of  the 
expansion  was  something  to  the  tune  of  about 
$12  million.  This  has  been  revised  and  I  be- 
lieve it  is  now  down  to  about  $8  million. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  in  spite  of 
the  freeze  which  the  Ministry  of  Housing  put 
on,  they  did  release  a  number  of  lots  and 
they  did  release  or  approve  some  plans  so  that 
more  lots  were  thrown  on  the  market.  In 
view  of  the  other  projects  which,  as  you 
know,  the  city  has  in  mind,  such  as  the 
industrial  park  which  this  ministry  was  very 
much  involved  in  and  to  which  the  govern- 


ment of  Ontario  contributed  50  per  cent  of 
the  funds— and  I  may  say  that  aside  from  the 
Marshall    Avenue    interchange    which    I    am 
told  now  is  being  resolved— 
Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  By  whom? 

Mr.  Bolan:  By  both  parties.  That  is  the 
last  word  I  have  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  You  must  have  been 
talking  to  Jean- Jacques  Blais. 

Mr.  Bolan:  I  understand  there  was  a  meet- 
ing last  Wednesday  in  Ottawa  with  Mr. 
Brunelle.  I  don't  know  if  you  were  there  or 
not.  Were  you? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  I  was. 
Mr.  Bolan:   In  any  event,  that  is  another 
topic  altogether.  It  was  not  resolved? 
Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No. 

Mr.  Bolan:  I  am  told  that  it  will  be.  They 
are  waiting  for  other  things  to  happen  be- 
fore that  takes  place. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  In  the  fullness  of  time. 

Mr.  Bolan:  In  the  fullness  of  time,  yes. 
I  hope  the  province's  treatment  of  the  prob- 
lem of  the  expansion  of  the  sewage  treat- 
ment plant  will  not  be  in  the  fullness  of  time 
but  rather  will  be  shortly. 

In  any  event,  as  you  know  there  are  some 
major  plans  going  on  in  North  Bay  for  ex- 
pansion, because  North  Bay,  if  anything, 
certainly  can  be  described  as  a  definite 
growth  area  in  northeastern  Ontario  and  you 
could  look  upon  it  as  a  future  distribution 
centre  for  northeastern  Ontario  and  north- 
western Quebec.  The  amount  which  is  gen- 
erated from  that  area  for  northwestern  Que- 
bec is  quite  large  and  a  big  flow  of  dollars 
and  of  demands  for  services  and  goods  comes 
from   northeastern  Ontario. 

In  view  of  these  expansion  programs  which 
are  growing  and  in  view  of  the  progress 
which  is  made  with  the  industrial  park,  I 
Would  like  to  know  from  the  minister  just 
what  his  position  is  with  respect  to  the 
funding  of  the  extension  of  the  sewage  treat- 
ment plant  at  North  Bay. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  the 
honourable  member  is  very  much  aware  and 
as  he  indicated,  that  was  a  project  that  was 
taken  on  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Environ- 
ment. The  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  has 
not  been  involved  in  the  funding  of  the 
treatment  plant.  We  will  await  the  outcome 
of  the  December  10  meeting.  I  believe  your 
new  mayor  is  coming  down  with  some  senior 
officials  from  North  Bay,  so  I  would  be  re- 
luctant to  even  comment  on  our  involve- 
ment at  this  time.  I  have  to  say  I  do  not 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4351 


know  all  the  details  and  I  will  be  briefed 
prior  to  that  meeting,  of  course.  I  think,  in 
all  fairness,  you  will  have  to  wait  until  we 
get  through  the  discussions. 

The  Ministry  of  the  Environment,  of 
course,  would  be  the  lead  line  ministry  in 
that  particular  responsibility,  so  if  you  will 
bear  with  me,  we  will  wait  until  that  par- 
ticular meeting  and  I  can  get  some  more 
facts. 
4:50  p.m. 

I  cannot  help  but  comment  on  the 
Marshall  Avenue  overpass.  Since  the  honour- 
able member  mentioned  it,  I  know  he  will 
want  me  to  comment  on  it  because  an  op- 
portunity never  goes  by  without  him  being 
pleased  to  see  what  development  is  going 
on  in  North  Bay  that  is  being  shared  50  per 
cent  by  this  province  and  50  per  cent  by 
the  federal  government. 

I  remember  the  honourable  member  stand- 
ing in  his  place  and  pleading  with  me  to  get 
together  with  the  then  Treasurer  of  the 
province,  Mr.  Darcy  McKeough,  to  sign  that 
subsidiary  agreement  for  $14  million.  I 
agreed  to  it.  The  member  for  Algoma  well 
remembers  how  we  moved  ahead  and  nego- 
tiated with  the  federal  government.  We 
wanted  a  $14-million  package  which  would 
take  in  the  Marshall  Avenue  overpass  and 
look  after  all  the  requirements  of  the  indus- 
trial park  that  is  going  to  mean  so  much 
to  the  future  of  North  Bay. 

The  industrial  commissioner  has  done  a 
fantastic  job.  If  there  is  a  community  that 
has  shown  what  can  be  done  with  a  dynamic, 
industrial  development  committee,  foresight 
and  an  industrial  development  program,  it 
is  North  Bay.  It  has  excelled  in  that.  It  is 
a  leader  in  northern  Ontario  when  it  comes 
to  attracting  small  industries  to  its  borders. 
Nevertheless,  I  was  prevailed  upon  and 
pressured  to  do  everything  I  could.  I  was 
hammered  down,  believe  me,  at  a  meeting 
in  North  Bay  attended  by  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  of  North  Bay  and  the  honourable 
member.  He  said  to  me:  "Go  for  a  smaller 
package.  Do  not  go  for  the  $14-million  pack- 
age. Go  for  a  $10-million  package." 

Mr.  Bolan:  You  and  Jean-Jacques  Blais. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  Jean-Jacques  Blais 
was  saying  that  because  he  had  the  $10 
million.  He  had  $5  million  and  the  province 
was  going  to  put  up  $5  million.  I  said: 
"Look,  we  are  so  close;  let  us  wait.  We  can 
get  $7  million  from  each.  The  province  is 
willing  to  put  up  its  $7  million."  We  had 
the  $7  million  at  that  time.  I  am  sure  if  the 


member  had  to  do  it  all  over  again  he  would 
agree  with  me  we  should  have  hung  in 
there  tighter.  It  would  have  been  only  a 
matter  of  weeks. 

The  federal  government  was  on  the  verge 
of  an  election.  Let  us  be  honest.  Jean- 
Jacques  Blais  wanted  to  get  re-elected.  He 
wanted  that  particular  project  to  move  ahead 
and  he  prevailed  upon  the  Treasurer  to  go 
for  a  $10-million  package.  So  we  are  right 
back  to  square  one  where  we  are  now  fight- 
ing for  that  $4  million.  I  think  North  Bay 
was  shortchanged.  I  really  do.  In  all  honesty, 
we  should  have  hung  in  there,  with  all  due 
respect  to  some  of  those  community  leaders 
and  the  chamber  of  commerce.  Now  the  fight 
is  going  to  be  a  very  tough  and  difficult  one 
because  moneys  are  that  much  tighter  today 
than  they  were  at  that  particular  time. 
Nevertheless,  we  will  await  the  outcome  of 
that  meeting  on  December  10  with  the 
North  Bay  officials  and  the  honourable  mem- 
ber to  see  where  we  can  assist,  if  we  can 
assist.  I  am  very  sympathetic  to  the  desires 
of  North  Bay  and  the  need  to  get  on  with 
industrial  development.  Of  course,  with  that, 
goes  the  treatment  plant  at  North  Bay. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to 
have  the  opportunity  of  setting  my  part  of 
the  record  straight,  if  I  may.  Naturally,  a 
bird  in  the  hand  is  worth  two  in  the  bush. 
I  have  used  that  expression  before  with 
respect  to  this  funding.  It  only  stands  to 
reason  to  take  the  $10  million,  and  we  will 
get  the  other  $4  million  somehow. 

Ontario  is  responsible  for  all  of  that, 
because  in  1976  there  was  an  agreement 
hammered  out  between  the  federal  and 
provincial  governments  for  about  $10  million. 
I  saw  the  agreement  myself,  because  I  was 
on  city  council  at  that  time.  I  met  with  my 
predecessor,  Dick  Smith,  and  other  members 
of  council.  There  it  was  in  black  and  white: 
$10  million  for  the  city  of  North  Bay  from 
the  provincial  and  federal  governments.  It 
did  provide  that  $2  million  of  that  was  for 
the  Marshall  Avenue  interchange.  But 
Ontario  reneged  on  its  end  of  the  deal  in 
signing  the  agreement  at  that  time.  It  kept 
putting  it  off. 

In  the  meantime,  this  is  what  happened. 
The  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications went  ahead  with  a  four-lane 
highway,  which  is  coming  into  North  Bay 
and  which  is  a  good  project.  As  a  result  of 
that  four-lane  highway  they  changed  their 
criteria  for  the  Marshall  Avenue  interchange. 
It  now  calls  for  an  overpass  over  the  railway 
and  for  all  those  other  things  which  were  not 


4352 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


needed  back  in  1976  when  the  original 
agreement  was  hammered  out. 

Again  I  will  say  I  would  do  the  same 
thing  over  again.  The  project  is  on  course,  I 
might  add.  There  was  a  $l-million  contract 
let  out  just  the  other  day  for  more  sewage 
system  expansion.  The  contract  for  the 
extension  of  Chippewa  Avenue  will  probably 
be  let  next  year.  It  is  all  on  stream  and 
all  falling  into  place.  The  $4  million  is 
going  to  be  paid  eventually.  I  feel  it  will 
definitely  be  50-50  between  the  province 
and  the  federal  government. 

As  I  say,  the  Ministry  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  has  changed  its  criteria 
for  the  interchange,  which  triggered  this 
additional  $2  million.  It  is  not  $4  million 
we  are  looking  at  really;  $2  million  would 
have  been  required  in  any  event  for  the 
Marshall  Avenue  interchange.  It  is  the 
change  in  design  and  the  change  in  criteria. 
That  is  my  part  of  the  record.  It  has  been 
going  on  for  three  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  It  all  boils  down  to  the 
fact  that  you  are  $4  million  short. 

Item  1  agreed  to. 

On  item  2,  isolated  communities: 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman.  I'm  looking 
at  the  figures  for  this  item.  If  I  look  at  the 
estimates  for  1978-79,  it  was  $630,000,  but 
actually  only  $195,998  was  spent.  The 
estimate  for  1979-80  was  $500,000  and  the 
estimate  for  1980-81  is  $800,000.  If  it  is  in 
order,  I  would  like  the  minister  to  explain 
why  the  low  amount  was  spent  in  1978-79. 
Can  he  also  give  us  some  indication  of  how 
much  has  been  spent  of  the  1979-80  estimate 
so  far? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  think  1978-79  was 
basically  the  start  of  the  program.  I  do  not 
think  the  message  really  got  out  to  the 
unorganized  areas  that  this  assistance  was 
available  to  them  in  order  to  get  them  to 
make  applications.  That  slowed  up  the  flow 
of  money  in  that  particular  year.  In  1979-80, 
we  had  a  total  of  $500,000  and  we  spent 
$489,500.  We  just  about  used  up  alf  the 
funds  there. 

I  think  the  increase  in  the  requirement 
this  year  flowed  from  the  establishment  of 
the  local  services  boards.  I  think  we  will 
have  a  more  sophisticated  group  out  in  the 
unorganized  areas  that  will  be  fully  familiar 
with  and  aware  how  this  program  works 
and  how  it  can  work  for  them.  We  expect  an 
increase  in  applications.  This  is  the  reason 
we  have  asked  for  your  support  for  additional 
funds  in  this  particular  vote. 


Mr.  Wildman:  What  the  minister  is  say- 
ing is  that  the  funds  allocated  for  this  year's 
program  have  almost  all  been  expended.  If 
there  are  applications  in  the  few  months  be- 
tween now  and  the  end  of  March,  let's  say, 
for  fire  protection  equipment  under  the 
isolated  communities  assistance  fund,  the 
equipment  will  not  be  able  to  be  provided 
until  after  the  beginning  of  the  next  fiscal 
year.  Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  are  into  the  1980- 
81  year.  I  was  referring  to  the  1979-80 
figure.  There  is  no  problem  this  year.  There 
are  still  funds  available. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Could  the  minister  indicate 
how  much  has  been  expendied  of  that 
$800,000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Of  the  1980-81  amount, 
that  figure  is  $677,000.  We  are  moving  right 
ahead. 

Mr.  Bolan:  On  the  question  of  the  local 
services  boards.  I  am  looking  at  the  attached 
chart  in  the  estimates  which  shows  the  num- 
ber of  meetings  which  were  held,  et  cetera. 
It  has  been  a  year  since  the  act  was  passed 
and  I  am  wondering  if  you  are  experiencing 
any  difficulties  with  respect  to  the  develop- 
ment of  the  boards.  What  is  the  feeling  out 
there?  What  is  the  feeling  with  the  people 
who  are  having  the  informational  meetings? 
Is  there  progress  being  made  once  the  initial 
meeting  is  held? 

5  p.m. 

•It  has  been  a  year  since  the  act  was 
passed,  and  Lord  knows,  we  discussed  it 
until  everybody  was  blue  in  the  face.  I  have 
noticed  you  have  some  results  here.  I  be- 
lieve you  had  an  election  in  Hudlson  and 
Foleyet.  Would  you  have  expected  the 
others  to  be  so  far  behind  before  imple- 
mentation or  what?  I  do  not  know.  I  am  just 
asking  the  question.  Is  there  a  reason  for  the 
dselay  in  the  implementation  of  the  local 
services  boards  beginning  with  their  informa- 
tional meetings  which  took  place  after  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  looked  at  a  period 
of  about  three  months  from  the  time  the 
organizational  meetings  were  being  brought 
together.  Bringing  a  new  piece  of  legislation 
like  this  forward— printing  the  material  alone 
in  both  languages  took  us  a  considerable 
amount  of  time.  Then,  of  course,  we  had  to 
train  our  northern  affairs  officers  because 
they  are  the  front-line  people  who  actually 
go  out  to  communities  and  help  them  or- 
ganize. We  even  made  the  posters  for  them. 
They  could  put  in  the  names,  times  and 
places  for  their  organizational  meetings. 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4353 


But  normally  we  look  at  about  a  three- 
month  period.  We  are  having  some  minor 
difficulty  with  regard  to  boundiaries.  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  has  rightly  requested 
the  right  to  comment  on  the  boundaries  that 
are  established  by  the  local  people  because 
it  wants  to  know  about  acting  with  an  or- 
ganized municipality.  That  is  one  minor 
situation  we  are  developing  and  it  is  work- 
ing fairly  well. 

Now  we  have  the  first  two  local  services 
boards.  The  honourable  member  has  cor- 
rectly pointed  out  that  Hudson,  the  greatest 
little  community  in  the  northwest,  was  the 
fir^t  local  services  board  to  be  established  in 
the  northwest.  As  I  said  in  Foleyet  on  Thurs- 
day last,  Hudson  and  Foleyet  are  unique  be- 
cause they  are  the  first  in  the  world  to  have 
local  services  boards.  That  is  pretty  different. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Why  are  there  not  more 
though? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  They  are  going  to  start 
to  go  now.  We  have  20  to  move  along  very 
quickly.  I  wish  the  honourable  member 
would  have  been  with  me  both  at  Hudson 
and  Foleyet  to  see  the  enthusiasm  and  the 
pride  that  those  people  have.  They  packed 
the  hall. 

We  had  a  special  swearing-in  ceremony 
for  them.  The  people  elected  to  the  board 
are  given  a  snecial  certificate  and  we  identi- 
fied both  of  those  communities  with  a  special 
scroll  honouring  the  event  because  we  have 
a  piece  of  legislation  here  that  is  unique  to 
northern  Ontario.  There  is  nothing  like  it  on 
the  North  American  continent  or  anywhere 
in  the  world.  They  were  very  pleased  and 
proud  of  that.  The  pride  of  making  their 
decisions  and  knowing  where  they  can  go 
and  where  they  want  to  go  was  very  real  at 
both  of  those  meetings. 

So  we  have  two  in  place  now.  There  are 
a  number  that  will  fall  in  place  after  these 
have  been  sworn  in.  We  are  looking  at  about 
20  that  will  be  fully  operational,  we  hope 
by  the  end  of  the  year  or  early  in  1981. 

Among  the  smaller  groups  of  population 
there  is  some  concern.  They  want  to  see  how 
the  other  ones  are  working  before  they  move 
in.  That  is  understandable.  But  as  I  pointed 
out  to  them,  it  is  permissive  legislation  which 
is  unique  in  this  House.  We  allowed  the 
people  to  opt  in  or  opt  out  and  the  fear  they 
may  have  is  not  as  great  as  maybe  they 
anticipate. 

I  am  personally  very  pleased.  I  made  it  a 
point  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  people 
in  Hudson  and  Foleyet  that  the  piece  of 
legislation    we    brought    to    this    Legislature 


and  had  passed  after  hours  of  debate  was  so 
good  that  all  political  parties  took  credit  for 
it.  I  think  you  would  agree  with  me  on  that. 
You  all  want  to  be  associated  with  that  piece 
of  legislation.  I  know  you  do.  As  you  go 
around  northern  Ontario  you  say  to  your- 
selves, "I  was  part  of  that  piece  of  legisla- 
tion." It  is  different.  It  is  something  the 
people  of  northern  Ontario  brought  together 
themselves.  The  unorganized  communities 
brought  it  together,  the  Unorganized  Com- 
munities Association  of  Northern  Ontario  East 
and  UCANO  West  and  the  30-odd  meetings 
my  staff  had  in  the  unorganized  communities 
of  northern  Ontario. 

The  staff  of  Northern  Affairs  deserves  a  lot 
of  credit,  as  do  the  communities  themselves 
and  UCANO  East  and  UCANO  West.  I  want 
to  express  my  appreciation  again  to  members 
on  both  sides  of  the  House  for  their  support 
in  the  excellent  piece  of  legislation  we  are 
now  seeing  put  into  place  and  becoming 
operational  and  functional  as  we  thought  it 
would. 

I  do  not,  at  this  point,  after  a  year  of 
examination  by  the  unorganized  communities, 
see  where  we  need  any  amendments.  You 
will  recall  I  said  that  if,  after  a  couple  of 
years,  we  saw  some  glaring  mistakes  I  was 
prepared  to  bring  the  bill  back  and  have 
some  amendments.  At  this  time  I  have  not 
seen  any  areas  where  we  need  amendments. 
I  think  that  is  a  credit  to  all  members  of  this 
Legislature. 

Mr.  Bolan:  That  is  what  I  was  going  to 
ask  the  minister,  whether,  now  the  act  has 
been  in  operation  for  one  year,  he  sees  any 
areas  where  amendments  would  be  required, 
particularly  to  deal  with  the  very  small  com- 
munities that  are  looking  at  forming  a  local 
service  board. 

These  are  distinct  types  of  communities 
and  that  is  what  is  unique  about  northern 
Ontario.  A  community  like  Foleyet  is  larger 
than  another  community.  Do  you  find  the 
requirements  of  the  act  lend  themselves  to 
the  smaller  community  as  well  as  to  the 
larger  community  which  seeks  an  LSB?  Do 
the  provisions  of  the  act  apply  as  well  with 
respect  to  the  arranging  of  the  meetings,  the 
numbers  that  are  required  and  the  number 
of  people  on  the  board?  I  can  see  in  a  small 
area  there  is  a  shortage  of  manpower.  There 
are  only  so  many  people  who  are  prepared1  to 
undertake  this  onerous  work.  I  am  just 
wondering  if  you  see  anything  happening 
there  so  that  a  really  small  community  may 
not  be  getting  as  full  a  benefit  of  the  act  as 
a  larger  community. 


4354 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  These  issues  have  not 
surfaced  as  yet.  As  I  pointed  out,  we  are  just 
getting  into  it.  It  has  been  a  year  since  the 
bill  was  passed.  We  have  had  lots  of  time  to 
study  it.  They  have  accepted  the  five-man 
boards  and  the  annual  election  of  those  board 
members.  They  love  the  secret  ballot  and 
they  like  the  50-50  arrangement. 

At  Hudson  and  Foleyet,  we  asked  them 
to  submit  a  global  budget.  They  did  that. 
They  looked  at  their  requirements  for  the 
next  year  and  took  a  global  figure  which  our 
staff  carefully  went  over  with  them.  We  then 
provided  them  with  50  per  cent  of  that  bud- 
get. If  they  came  up  with  a  budget  of,  say, 
$10,000,  we  would  be  responsible  for  $5,000 
at  the  end  of  the  year.  To  get  them  started, 
we  give  them  an  advance.  We  gave  them  50 
per  cent  of  our  normal  assistance.  The  bal- 
ance of  our  grant  would  come  after  the  audit. 
They  were  appreciative  of  that.  We  wanted 
to  show  our  desire  and  sincerity,  saying: 
"Look  here,  this  is  what  we  meant.  We  are 
putting  up  dollar  for  dollar  to  show  you  we 
mean  business.  Here  is  our  50  per  cent  of  the 
grant  in  advance."  This  is  very  unusual. 

I  think  one  has  to  respond  to  those  small 
communities  in  that  way  because  $2,500  or 
$3,000  in  a  small  community  is  a  lot  of  money 
when  it  is  put  out  and  used  for  services. 
They  now  have  that  kind  of  encouragement. 
When  I  gave  the  cheque  to  the  people  in 
Foleyet  for  $3,000  on  Thursday  night,  they 
realized  this  ministry  and  this  government 
meant  business.  We  were  out  to  help  them 
as  much  as  we  could  and  we  were  showing 
that  sincerity  with  the  delivery  of  those  funds 
at  the  start  of  the  first  part  of  their  fiscal 
year. 

5:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Bolan:  I  have  one  more  question  on 
this.  Have  you  had  any  complaints  on  the 
method  of  service  by  mail  to  the  voters  or  to 
those  to  whom  notice  is  sent  out  that  con- 
sideration is  being  given  to  the  formation  of 
a  local  services  board  in  that  area?  We  dis- 
cussed that  at  some  length  and  I  suggested 
it  be  done  by  registered  mail.  I  believe  that 
failed,  and  I  would  just  like  to  know  if  there 
were  any  complaints  from  anyone  on  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  If  I  recall  correctly, 
the  honourable  member  did  make  the  sug- 
gestion that  we  have  a  mailing  list  and  that 
registered  mail  be  used  to  advise  all  the 
voters  in  that  particular  area.  I  think  he 
modified  that  after  giving  it  some  further 
thought,  knowing  of  the  expense  and,  of 
course,  the  effectiveness  of  the  postal  system. 


I  think  he  would  review  that  request  totally 
now  if  he  had  to  do  it  over  again. 

No,  I  have  not  heard  of  anything  along 
those  lines  that  would  cause  me  to  change 
my  position  with  respect  to  notices.  The 
northern  affairs  officers  make  a  point  of 
making  sure  the  area  being  serviced  by  the 
local  sendees  boards  is  very  broadly  notified 
through  posters.  We  have  come  up  with  a 
very  attractive  poster,  where  we  just  put 
the  place  and  the  time.  The  information  is 
given  and  in  a  small  community  the  word  gets 
out  pretty  fast.  We  have  not  encountered  any 
problems  along  the  line  that  the  member 
was  fearful  of  at  that  particular  time,  but 
we  have  monitored  it  very  carefully. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wonder  if 
the  minister  could  tell  us  how  many  officials 
he  has  working  specifically  on  the  local  serv- 
ices board  applications  and  processing?  I 
understand  in  the  northeastern  regional  office 
Mr.  Peter  Merritt,  whom  I  have  met  on  a 
number  of  occasions,  is  in  charge,  and  I 
suppose  he  has  a  counterpart  in  the  north- 
western regional  office.  I  was  wondering  if 
the  minister  believes  that  one  person  in  each 
regional  office  is  sufficient  to  process  and 
carry  through  the  whole  procedure  for  the 
applications  after  the  initial  meetings  with 
the  local  northern  affairs  officers.  There  seems 
to  be  some  holdup  once  the  initial  applica- 
tion is  made.  The  minister  himself  said  it 
takes  about  three  months.  I  wonder  if,  as  well 
as  telling  us  how  many  people  he  has  work- 
ing on  it  and  whether  he  thinks  that  is 
sufficient,  he  could  explain  the  reason  for 
the  delay  of  three  months  before  there  is  a 
decision  on  whether  a  board  will  be  set  up? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  have  been  advised 
that  we  have,  as  the  member  has  correctly 
pointed  out,  two  full-time  people  looking  after 
the  local  services  boards,  in  the  northeast, 
Peter  Merritt,  and  in  the  northwest  Stu  Evert. 
Of  course,  they  have  the  backup  support  of 
other  branches  of  our  ministry,  including  the 
legal  staff.  As  I  pointed  out  in  my  earlier 
remarks,  those  applications  are  sent  to  Inter- 
governmental Affairs,  particularly  as  they  re- 
late to  the  boundaries.  So  we  have  to  wait 
until  that  ministry  has  a  chance  to  comment 
on  them.  At  this  time,  we  do  not  see  any 
necessity  to  build  up  that  staff.  We  may  be 
concentrating  more  of  our  resources  in  the 
initial  stages  in  getting  applications  resolved, 
but  with  the  co-operation  and  the  assistance 
of  northern  affairs  officers  as  they  move 
around,  they  are  flowing.  If  we  run  into  any 
snags,  I  can  assure  you  we  will  get  some 
extra  resources  and  keep  the  program  mov- 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4355 


ing,   because   I  think  it  is  essential  we  do 
that. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Could  the  minister  also 
indicate  whether  it  is  a  requirement  of  the 
ministry  to  have  the  local  community,  when 
they  are  applying  for  assistance  under  the 
isolated  communities  assistance  fund,  also  to 
apply  for  a  local  services  board?  In  other 
words,  if  they  are  looking  for  capital  assist- 
ance or  firefighting  equipment,  for  instance, 
and  the  question  arises  as  to  maintenance 
and  funding  for  maintenance,  is  it  necessary 
for  them  to  form  a  local  services  board  or 
could  a  group  somehow  incorporate  itself  in 
another  way  and  apply  for  assistance  under 
the  isolated  communities  assistance  fund,  and 
then  look  after  the  maintenance  on  its  own 
without  getting  the  matching  funds  through 
a  local  services  board? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  kept  the  isolated 
communities  assistance  fund  in  place  and,  as 
you  have  already  noticed,  we  have  added  to 
it  this  year  for  that  very  reason.  No,  there  is 
no  requirement  that  a  community  must  form 
a  local  services  board  to  apply  for  an  ICAF 
grant.  There  is  no  connection  at  all.  We 
want  to  make  it  very  clear  that  if  that 
nucleus  of  people  have  the  desire  and  they 
can  show  to  us  they  are  a  cohesive  group, 
that  they  have  some  resources  and  they  have 
a  self-help  motivation,  then  the  ICAF  fund 
is  still  available  to  them.  They  can  form  a 
community  action  group  if  they  so  wish.  But 
it  is  still  there  in  place  and  it  has  no  connec- 
tion with  the  local  services  board.  But  a 
local  services  board  can  apply  for  an  ICAF 
grant,  over  and  above  their  operational  costs 
for  the  services  they  administer. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Has  the  ministry  run  into 
the  problem  of  different  groups  in  the  same 
vicinity  which  are  interested  in  different 
services  both  applying  to  form  local  services 
boards?  In  other  words,  have  you  had  a 
situation  where  one  group  might  be  inter- 
ested in  water  supply— getting  some  assist- 
ance to  maintain  a  water  system— but  in  the 
same  vicinity  another  group  is  interested  in 
providing  fire  protection— and  it  has  applied 
to  form  a  local  services  board  and  also  ap- 
plies under  ICAF  for  fire  protection  equip- 
ment? If  you  have  run  into  that  problem, 
what  process  are  you  going  through  to  re- 
solve it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  It  is  obvious  the 
member  for  Algoma  is  very  familiar  with  the 
Unorganized  Communities  Association  of 
Northern  Ontario,  and  I  think  he  is  referring 
to   the  politics   that  develop   within   a  small 


community.  He  is  quite  right.  There  are 
little  groups  that  have  a  certain  desire  to  do 
something  for  the  field  of  recreation;  another 
group  is  totally  centred  on  a  water  supply, 
another  group  is  wrapped  up  with  having  a 
fire  department.  I  am  not  saying  it  is  a 
problem,  but  it  is  there,  it  is  real,  and  we  do 
not  discount  it.  The  best  way  to  resolve  it, 
of  course,  is  at  an  open  public  gathering.  We 
have  to  point  out  to  them  the  benefits  of  a 
co-operative,  co-ordinated  approach  to  either 
services.  After  they  have  seen  the  benefits 
that  can  flow,  particularly  with  the  incentive 
of  the  dollar-for-dollar  assistance  program, 
they  come  together. 

I  know  in  my  own  home  town  of  Hudson, 
I  was  with  the  chamber  of  commerce  for  a 
number  of  vears.  The  chamber  there  has 
been  responsible  for  the  development  and 
the  funding  of  the  town  fire  truck  so  they 
had  a  bit  of  a  bank  account  built  up.  The 
new  chairman  of  the  local  services  board 
said  they  should  pass  it  over  to  them  because 
the  board  would  use  it  in  the  delivery  of 
firefighting  service  and  would  provide  the 
fire  department  with  all  the  things  it  needed, 
and  then  the  board  could  get  a  dollar-for- 
dollar  grant.  That  is  correct,  because  it  is 
there,  it  was  used  as  part  of  their  original 
funding  mechanism,  so  now  it  will  be  in  one 
pot. 

It  is  an  issue  that  the  northern  affairs 
officers  deal  with  very  delicately,  because  the 
pride  is  built  up,  say,  in  the  community  hall, 
in  the  curling  rink  or  in  the  skating  rink- 
even  in  the  street  lights.  You  could  get  a 
couple  of  people  who  are  solely  dedicated  to 
having  their  community  really  lit  up  and  take 
pride  in  that.  They  cherish,  they  protect  and 
they  guard  their  accomplishments.  So  it  is  a 
little  bit  of  working  closely  with  the  people 
and  pointing  out  to  them  the  benefits  that 
will  flow  from  it.  But  you  are  quite  right  in 
pointing  this  matter  out.  We  are  making  the 
northern  affairs  officers  aware  of  it.  They 
were  always  aware,  of  course,  but  we  ask 
them  to  work  closely  with  the  local  people 
and  point  out  to  them  the  benefits  that  flow 
from  an  LSB. 

5:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Have  you  developed  any 
policy  or  do  you  have  to  look  at  it  simply  on 
a  case-by- case  basis  about  this  possible 
problem  of  having  two  actual  formal  applica- 
tions for  local  services  boards  within  a  very 
small  area?  Again,  that  is  not  exactly  the 
same  area.  However,  you  might  even  have 
that  situation  where  there  is  one  group  apply- 
ing for  a  local  services  board  to  provide  a 


4356 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


particular  service  in  covering  the  whole  of  an 
unorganized  township,  while  some  other 
group  in  a  small  community  in  that  township 
that  is  interested  in  another  service  for  its 
own  particular  area  is  applying  for  a  local 
services  board.  If  you  do  get  two  applications 
like  that,  what  is  your  policy?  What  do  you 
do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  There  is  no  specific 
example  I  can  relate  to  in  this  particular 
situation.  As  I  said  earlier,  the  Ministry  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs  looks  at  the 
boundaries  that  are  being  established  by  a 
local  services  board.  Our  own  staff  look  at 
those  boundaries  and,  in  their  opinion, 
examine  what  that  particular  group  can  ser- 
vice. What  do  they  want  to  service?  Do  they 
want  to  service  street  lights?  Do  they  want 
to  provide  garbage  collection  and  fire  protec- 
tion? We  may  go  to  the  fire  marshal's  office 
for  his  advice. 

When  we  do  that,  we  can  pretty  well  sort 
it  out.  We  bring  both  groups  together  and 
say:  "This  is  what  the  people  in  the  field 
think.  This  is  the  area  that  can  be  serviced 
with  the  services  you  require.  In  our  opinion, 
this  is  the  route  to  go."  With  the  art  of  dis- 
cussion, putting  all  the  cards  on  the  table, 
so  to  speak,  and  bringing  them  into  our  con- 
fidence as  to  how  best  they  can  operate  as  a 
self-help  program,  I  feel  confident  we  can 
work  it  out. 

Getting  back  to  the  town  of  Hudson,  it 
chose  just  to  go  with  a  fire  department, 
recreation  program  and  street  lighting.  I 
was  very  interested  in  having  them  take  over 
the  water  system  because  I  happen  to  be 
very  much  involved  with  the  water  system  at 
Hudson.  However,  I  could  not  talk  them  into 
taking  over  the  water  system  at  this  time. 
They  see  that  as  something  down  the  road  in 
two  or  three  years.  Their  argument  is,  and  I 
suppose  it  is  a  valid  one:  "We  want  to  get  the 
local  services  board  going.  We  want  to  get  it 
functional  and  gain  some  experience  before 
we  take  too  big  a  bite.  Leave  the  water  out 
of  it  for  the  time  being.  Hopefully  as  we  get 
more  experience  and  knowledge  and  build  up 
our  administrative  strength,  we  will  look  at 
the  water  system."  I  think  that  is  a  very 
responsible  kind  of  thinking. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Since  the  minister  could  not 
think  of  a  particular  example,  I  will  give  him 
two  examples.  The  community  of  Searchmont 
in  my  riding,  which  I  mentioned  before,  has 
a  fire  department  that  has  been  in  operation 
for  some  time.  They  got  some  equipment  on 
their  own  before  the  isolated  communities 
assistance    fund    came    in.    They    got    some 


assistance  from  ICAF  when  it  did  come  in. 
They  have  applied  for  further  assistance  be- 
cause the  equipment  they  have,  which  is 
secondhand,  is  not  adequate  to  provide  the 
fire  protection  they  require. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  over  a  year  ago 
now  that  that  community  applied  for  a  truck 
to  replace  the  truck  that  carries  only  a  300- 
gallon  capacity  and  is  inadequate.  I  got  a  call 
from  the  fire  chief  or  the  head  of  the  com- 
mittee about  it  last  week.  I  was  wondering  if 
I  could  ask  you  why  it  has  taken  since 
January  of  last  year  for  them  to  hear  any- 
thing about  it.  I  am  asking  you  that  now  and 
using  that  as  an  example. 

They  also  had  the  problem  of  the  com- 
munity centre.  They  had  these  two  groups 
that  hoped  to  get  assistance  and  wanted  to 
put  their  two  services  into  operation.  The 
Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  was  successful 
in  bringing  those  two  groups  together. 
Although  there  was  some  trepidation  on  the 
part  of  some  people,  they  decided  to  work 
together  and  to  say,  "We  have  these  two 
committees,  the  recreation  hall  committee  and 
the  fire  protection  committee.  They  can  both 
be  subcommittees  of  one  local  services  board 
and  we  will  make  an  application  for  a  local 
services  board."  You  have  received  that 
application.  In  that  sense,  the  ministry  was 
successful  in  doing  what  the  minister  in- 
dicated. 

In  the  township  of  Aweres,  however,  we 
have  a  group  that  is  attempting  to  set  up  a 
fire  brigade  and  to  get  fire  protection  equip- 
ment. It  is  interested  in  providing  protection 
for  the  whole  of  the  unorganized  township. 
However,  within  that  township  there  is 
another  small  group,  a  subdivision  group 
basically,  that  has  a  problem  with  mainte- 
nance of  its  water  system,  which  is  a  communal 
water  system.  They  have  made  an  application 
for  a  local  services  board  for  their  own  little 
area  to  provide  their  water  supply.  I  believe 
both  of  those  applications  have  been  for- 
warded to  the  ministry  through  Peter  Merritt, 
and  I  guess  have  been  processed. 

My  question,  which  maybe  I  should  not  be 
putting  on  the  record,  is:  Does  Northern 
Affairs  have  the  same  kind  of  concern  that  has 
been  expressed  to  me  unofficially  by  the 
Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  about 
having  two  applications  for  different  services 
within  a  similar  area?  If  you  do  share  that 
concern,  can  you  tell  me  what  you  are  hoping 
to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  wasn't  aware  of  that 
particular  situation,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I 
think  it  is  fair  to   say  that  in  some  of  the 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4357 


applications,  the  actual  organizational  meeting 
may  not  take  place  as  quickly  as  one  group 
or  the  other  group  may  wish.  I  think  we  have 
found  in  a  couple  of  cases  that  if  we  just 
take  a  little  more  time  and  let  the  people 
talk  among  themselves,  sometimes  those 
groups  will  come  together.  It  has  happened 
that  where  we  went  into  an  information 
meeting,  we  have  had  two  different  groups 
sitting  in  the  hall,  obviously  both  on  different 
wavelengths  and  both  determined  to  be  the 
inspiration  of  the  leaders  with  regard  to  the 
local  services  board. 

Once  we  have  disseminated  all  the  informa- 
tion, a  northern  affairs  officer  will  then  go 
back  in  and  talk  to  the  various  groups.  As 
we  discussed  during  the  development  of  that 
piece  of  legislation,  really  it  was  a  consensus 
we  wanted.  We  wanted  a  strong  feeling,  be- 
cause it  was  a  self-help  type  of  thrust,  so  it 
is  obvious,  if  we  are  going  to  go  ahead  with 
a  structure,  that  we  have  to  have  the  support 
or  at  least  the  consensus  of  some  support 
from  a  majority  of  the  people. 

It  is  fair  to  say  that  in  some  of  these  smaller 
communities  there  are  objections.  Some 
people  don't  want  to  change  and  they  have 
made  their  views  known,  but  they  are  very 
much  in  the  minority.  Just  the  odd  one  has 
that  fear  and  sometimes  they  are  not  fully 
informed;  they  have  a  lack  of  knowledge  as 
to  what  it  will  do  for  them  in  the  way  of 
costs.  That  is  a  big  thing  in  an  organized 
area.  They  see  a  horrendous  structure,  they 
see  tax  being  imposed  upon  them  without 
getting  into  the  real  operation  of  the  local 
services  board,  but  once  that  has  been  done, 
in  the  largest  percentage  of  the  cases,  those 
fears  are  dispelled. 

It  is  the  art  of  persuasion,  I  guess,  that  we 
use  and  will  continue  to  use  until  we  find  a 
better  system,  but  obviously  we  can't  have 
two  LSBs  overlapping  each  other;  that  would 
be  impossible.  We  hope  common  sense  will 
prevail  and  they  will  get  together  and  do  the 
best  for  the  area  that  they  can. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  dealing  once 
again  with  the  question  of  extension  of  serv- 
ices to  the  northern  communities,  I  am  sure 
the  House  would  like  to  know  that  as  a  re- 
sult of  vigorous  and  persistent  pressure  by 
myself  and  by  other  members  of  both  oppo- 
sition parties  with  respect  to  the  extension 
of  ETV  in  Ontario,  the  Minister  of  Culture 
and  Recreation  (Mr.  Baetz)  today  announced 
from  North  Bay  the  extension  of  the  services 
to  service  the  ridings  of  Nipissing  and  Parry 
Sound  as  well  as  part  of  Muskoka,  so  I  am 
sure  you  would  like  to  hear  that. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  must  put  on  the  rec- 
ord along  with  what  the  honourable  member 
from  North  Bay  has  put  on  the  record,  the 
fact  that  the  member  for  Parry  Sound  (Mr. 
Maeck)  was  most  supportive,  most  vocal,  as 
was,  of  course,  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs  in  making  sure  that  ETV  is  brought 
to  that  great  part  of  northern  Ontario.  We 
still  have  a  few  blank  spots  up  there  that 
we  are  looking  at  very  carefully,  and  cer- 
tainly as  funds  become  available  we  will 
continue  to  apply  pressure.  I  know  I  have 
the  support  of  my  northern  cabinet  colleagues 
to  extend  that  excellent  service  in  northern 
Ontario  into  all  parts  of  northern  Ontario. 
5:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  pleased 
to  be  able  to  participate  in  this  particular 
estimates  discussion  as  a  bona  fide  northern 
Ontario  member.  I  have  to  tell  the  minister, 
according  to  the  Office  of  the  Assembly,  my 
mileage  rate  is  now  adjusted  to  take  into 
consideration  northern  circumstances,  so  I 
appreciate  that  status  being  conferred  on  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  must  have  that 
checked. 

Mr.  Ashe:  Is  it  a  $10  licence  fee? 

Mr.  Conway:  That  is  one  of  the  subjects 
I  will  parenthetically  refer  to  in  a  moment. 
I  want  to  draw  to  the  minister's  attention, 
under  vote  703,  isolated  communities  activity. 

In  my  constituency  there  is  a  portion  of 
the  southeastern  Nipissing  district.  The  areas 
are  divided  into  one  organized  municipality 
area  township  and  some  unorganized  town- 
ships in  which  approximately  600  to  800 
people  reside.  One  of  those  hamlets  is  called 
Madawaska.  For  some  time  now  the  people 
there  have  been  engaged,  through  the  local 
fire  department,  in  the  business  of  trying  to 
arrange  for  the  raising  of  sufficient  funds  to 
construct  a  building  in  which  their  fire  en- 
gine might  be  located. 

My  friend  the  member  for  Algoma-Mani- 
toulin  (Mr.  Lane)  will  well  remember  a  sunny 
day  some  months  ago  when  he  brought  that 
fine  new  vehicle  into  town. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Did  he  drive  it  in? 

Mr.  Conway:  The  member  for  Algoma- 
Manitoulin,  as  I  recall,  did  not  drive  the 
vehicle  into  town  but  it  did  arrive  with  a 
very  considerable  fanfare. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Lights  and1  siren  going? 

Mr.  Conway:  Exactly.  My  friend  from  Al- 
goma  has  it  down  to  a  T.  It  was,  none  the 
less,  appreciated  because,  as  the  minister 
knows,  those  kinds  of  services  in  isolated 
communities   are  particularly  important. 


4358 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


To  the  problem  at  hand:  the  community 
found  itself  in  the  possession  of  a  very  good 
vehicle,  but  with  some  financial  constraint  in 
terms  of  raising  funds  to  house  it  properly. 
They  have  preceded  the  local  Murchison 
and  Lyell  fire  department  in  building  not 
only  a  firehall  but  also  an  associated  library. 
They  have  done,  I  think,  an  excellent  job 
in  raising  funds,  and  they  are  continuing  that 
process. 

As  of  this  weekend— and  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  visit  that  community  just  36  hours 
ago— the  construction  had  pretty  well  been 
completed  as  far  as  the  contract  work  was 
involved,  although  a  substantial  amount  of 
volunteer  labour  had  yet  to  be  applied.  The 
minister  will  know,  because  I  have  written 
to  him  and  heard  from  him  not  too  long  ago 
in  this  matter.  I  was  wondering  if  he  could 
advise  me  today  as  to  whether  there  would 
be  favourable  consideration  given  to  a  re- 
quest by  the  Murchison  and  Lyell  fire  de- 
partment for  some  financial  assistance  with 
respect  to  the  construction  and  related  costs. 
It  will  not  be  a  great  amount  of  money  in 
the  overall  scheme  of  things. 

I  want  to  reiterate  my  earlier  comments  in 
saying  the  local  volunteer  fire  department  has 
done  an  extremely  good  job.  Mr.  Mervin 
Dupuis  and  his  group  have  been  very  active 
over  a  number  of  months  now  in  raising 
funds,  but  given  the  fact  not  more  than  300 
to  400  people  live  in  that  hamlet  they  do 
have  a  very  restricted  base  from  which  to 
draw.  They,  I  know,  would  be  very  appreci- 
ative of  any  assistance  the  minister  might 
provide,  recognizing  that  he  has  done  a 
considerably  good  service  in  making  the 
vehicle  available.  It  seems  to  me  it  would 
make  very  good'  sense  to  provide  some  funds 
to  assist  in  that  particular  project. 

While  I  am  on  my  feet— I  think  this  is 
parenthetical  but  I  always  imagined  it  to  be 
directly  under  the  vote— the  people  of  that 
particular  isolated  community  wonder  why, 
in  terms  of  tax  benefits,  they  continue  to  be 
discriminated  against  in  so  far  as  what  I  call 
the  Mac  tax  cut  of  1976  is  involved.  Perhaps 
I  should  call  it  the  Mac-McKeough  tax  cut 
which  gave  the  $10  licence  fee  to  the  people 
of  northern  Ontario  with  some  flexibility. 

The  good  people  of  Madawaska,  Whitney, 
Stonecliffe  and  that  northern  portion  of  Ren- 
frew county  would  feel  I  was  being  remiss 
in  the  defence  of  their  isolated  circumstances 
if  I  did  not  draw  to  the  attention  of  the 
Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  again  today  their 
very  earnest  desire  to  have  favourable  con- 
sideration given  to  the  inclusion  under  that 


benefit  of  all  of  the  district  of  Nipissing  and 
that  northerly  portion  of  the  county  of 
Renfrew.  It  is  an  important  matter  for  those 
people.  They  see  it  as  more  than  a  symbolic 
gesture. 

I  know  the  minister  appreciates  the  isolated 
circumstances  of  some  of  these  communities. 
I  notice,  for  example,  under  this  particular 
vote  there  is  reference  to  Kaa  in  terms  of  an 
isolated  community.  There  are  people  who 
live  near  that  isolated  lumber  camp— which  is 
essentially  what  it  is— who  still  pay  a  southern 
Ontario  rate,  though  to  procure  the  licence 
they  go  to  Mattawa  where  everyone  else  gets 
the  special  benefit. 

I  realize  drawing  a  line  is  always  difficult. 
I  would  make  myself  available  to  the  minister, 
in  public  or  in  private,  to  assist  in  what  I 
think  is  a  responsible  arbitration  of  that 
sensitive  and  difficult  matter. 

I  would  like  to  draw  out  from  the  minister 
at  this  time,  recognizing  winter  snows  have 
already  fallen  in  the  great  community  of 
Madawaska,  whether  we  can  expect,  on  be- 
half of  that  volunteer  fire  association,  any 
direct  financial  assistance  in  the  coming  weeks 
for  that  public  work— the  firehall  and  library— 
and  secondly,  whether  he  might  pronounce 
on  government  policy  as  it  relates  to  a  favour- 
able consideration  for  all  the  district  of 
Nipissing  and  the  northerly  sections  of  the 
great  county  of  Renfrew  with  respect  to  the 
Mac-McKeough  licence  tax  cut. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  If  I  could  comment  on 
the  remarks  of  the  member  for  Renfrew 
North,  I  appreciate  his  desire  to  have  a  por- 
tion of  his  affluent  riding  belong  to  northern 
Ontario.  I  hope  the  people  in  northern 
Ontario,  and  mv  friend  from  Algoma,  are 
listening. 

We  so  often  hear  in  northern  Ontario:  "If 
I  only  belonged  to  southern  Ontario.  That's 
where  all  the  goodies  and  all  the  benefits 
really  are  and  we're  always  shortchanged  in 
northern  Ontario."  To  have  the  situation 
reversed  and  have  an  eastern  Ontario  riding 
wanting  to  be  part  of  northern  Ontario  is  a 
message  I  am  going  to  take  right  across 
northern  Ontario.  It's  a  real  twist. 

I  regret  I  cannot  give  the  honourable 
member  any  encouragement  that  we  would 
change  our  present  administrative  border,  our 
north-south  line,  as  it  relates  to  the  licence 
fee.  I  believe  it  goes  across  the  northern  part 
of  Algonquin  Park.  That  has  basically  been 
established  as  our  area  of  responsibility. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  a  moral  respon- 
sibility we  have  looked  at  the  needs  of 
Madawaska  with  respect  to  that  fire  truck.  I 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4359 


want  to  make  it  clear  that,  while  we  did  that, 
it  didn't  mean  they  were  part  of  northern 
Ontario  or  part  of  our  administrative  area. 

I  want  to  go  one  step  further.  In  view  of 
the  fact  we  have  given  them  a  fire  truck,  I 
think  it's  only  fair  we  assist  them  with  the 
facility  that  nouses  that  fire  truck.  We  have 
a  $40,000  investment  there  and  I  am  pre- 
pared to  have  my  staff  take  a  close  look  at 
that  and  to  work  with  the  people  in  that 
community. 

I  don't  think  I  can  go  any  further  than 
that.  I  don't  want  it  to  be  spelled  out  as  a 
commitment  that  they  are  part  of  northern 
Ontario  or  part  of  our  administrative  respon- 
sibility, but  only  that  we  have  a  unique  situa- 
tion. As  the  member  correctly  points  out,  the 
border  areas  are  always  the  grey  areas.  They 
are  always  difficult  areas  to  deal  with.  No 
matter  what  program  one  comes  up  with,  one 
puts  a  dividing  line  on  it.  There  are  always 
people  on  one  side  of  the  street  who  get 
services  that  people  on  the  other  side  of  the 
street  do  not. 
5:40  p.m. 

It  is  very  difficult.  We  do  believe  in  main- 
taining that  northern  boundary,  so  to  speak. 
It  has  been  in  place  now  for  three  or  four 
years  and  seems  to  be  working  fairly  well.  It 
is  fairly  definitive.  That  buffer  zone  of  Algon- 
quin Park  does  assist.  To  alleviate  some  of 
your  concerns  and  certainly  to  protect  what 
is  a  public  investment  in  Madawaska,  I  am 
going  to  ask  my  staff  to  go  down  and  meet 
with  your  people  in  that  community  and 
work  out  some  financial  assistance  program. 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might,  I 
want  to  add  a  couple  of  points.  Let  me  say 
at  the  outset  I  thank  the  minister  for  that 
assurance  because,  to  be  sure,  the  people 
involved  in  that  volunteer  fire  department 
will  be  gratified  to  know  the  minister  is  giving 
the  matter  serious  and,  hopefully,  favourable 
consideration.  I  want  to  make  myself  available 
to  his  staff.  I  reiterate  it  is  not  a  great  deal 
of  money.  In  fact,  a  relatively  small  amount 
of  money  will  probably  solve  the  immediate 
concern. 

I  want  to  tell  the  minister  that  if  any  of 
his  staff  are  working  on  this,  I  would  be  de- 
lighted to  assist  because  I  do  have  quite  a 
deep,  personal  involvement  with  that  com- 
munity. I  would  be  quite  happy  to  do  any- 
thing I  can  to  assist  in  the  consideration 
and,  hopefully,  favourable  execution  of  some 
assistance  in  that  respect. 

With  the  Minister  of  Education  (Miss 
Stephenson)  present,  I  want  to  draw  to  the 


attention  of  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs 
some  of  the  anomalies  that  strike  at  the  heart 
of  local  residents  with  respect  to  this  line.  I 
also  draw  them  to  the  attention  of  my  friend 
from  Algoma  who  was  brought  into  this  by 
the  minister  in  his  remarks.  People  who  live 
in  the  Nipissing  district  find  themselves  con- 
sidered for  many  other  things  as  part  of 
northern  Ontario,  as  of  course  they  should 
be.  They  just  wonder,  "Why,  in  terms  of  this 
benefit,  are  we  suddenly  not  included?"  be- 
cause it  is  quite  properly  a  benefit  that  is 
extended  to  northern  Ontario. 

There  are  a  couple  of  isolated  communities 
that  find  themselves  in  the  district  of 
Nipissing,  which  is  part  of  northern  Ontario. 
Again,  we  are  not  talking  about  a  great  num- 
ber of  people.  We  are  talking  altogether 
probably  of  an  additional  1,500  people,  if  we 
include  all  the  district  of  Nipissing.  If  it  were 
a  city  of  25,000  or  40,000  people  anchored 
in  there,  then  it  would  probably  be  a  different 
matter.  But  we  are  talking  about  a  relatively 
few  people  who  in  many  other  respects 
receive  their  benefits  from  northern  Ontario. 

The  added  frustration  of  that,  and  the  one 
I  have  with  respect  to  this  kind  of  demarca- 
tion, is  that  in  my  research— and  it  has  been 
very  tentative  and  cursory— I  have  noted  that 
this  government  has  not  one  but  at  least  five 
or  six  lines  of  demarcation.  In  the  presence 
of  my  good  friend  the  Minister  of  Education, 
the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  will  be  happy 
to  know  that  the  town  of  Arnprior  in  the  far 
southeastern  section  of  Renfrew  county,  but 
40  miles  from  the  national  capital,  for  at  least 
one  program  under  this  Ontario  government 
is  considered  northern  and  gets  a  grant  from 
Education  for  that  purpose.  In  my  own  home 
town  of  Pembroke,  there  is  consideration  of 
the  central  and  northern  portion— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  We  looked  at  the 
entire  area. 

Mr.  Conway:  That  is  right,  the  minister 
is  quite  correct.  For  the  young  travellers' 
grant  under  the  Ministry  of  Education,  all  of 
the  county  of  Renfrew  is  considered  north- 
ern. I  am  certainly  not  lamenting  that  fact 
at  all.  But  I  want  to  stand  in  my  place  and 
tell  you  that  as  a  lifelong  resident  of  Ren- 
frew county  I  have  never  for  a  moment  con- 
sidered Arnprior— the  Prior— as  northern.  As 
my  friend,  who  is  formerly  from  Richmond, 
will  well  know,  it  is  not  considered  with  Go- 
gama  and  Moosonee  and  other  places  as 
main  street  northern  Ontario  but,  none  the 
less,  under  a  particular  departmental  pro- 
gram—a grant  in  this  instance— Arnprior  is 
ostensibly  northern  Ontario. 


4360 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


My  home  community  of  Pembroke  is  con- 
sidered northern  for  the  Ministry  of  Govern- 
ment Services.  There  are  at  least,  as  I  say, 
a  half  dozen  different  governmental  lines  of 
demarcation  which  involve  my  electoral  dis- 
trict, both  in  Nipissing  and  Renfrew.  This 
is  a  confusion  and  difficulty  I  would  invite 
the  minister  with  the  able  and,  I  am  sure, 
ready  assistance  of  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion to  work  towards  resolving. 

I  would  certainly  like  to  see  a  single  line 
of  demarcation  that  does  take  into  consider- 
ation the  favourable  inclusion  of  some  of  the 
northerly  sections  of  the  county  of  Renfrew. 
Certainly  it  has  never  been  my  position  that 
the  entire  county  should  be  included.  That 
would  just  not  be  realistic  in  light  of  the 
inclusion  of  what  I  believe  to  be  most  of  the 
counties  in  eastern  Ontario. 

There  are  small  isolated  communities  up 
Highway  17  in  the  Mattawa  area  that  go  to 
Mattawa  as  their  service  base— isolated  com- 
munities like  Deux-Rivieres.  They  go  to  Mat- 
tawa to  get  their  licence  plates  and  find  out 
they  have  to  pay  a  southern  Ontario  rate 
when  their  condition  is  exactly  that  of  Mat- 
tawa and  Cavan  township  and  other  places. 
Similarly  with  Madawaska  and  Whitney. 

My  plea  really  is  for  a  systematic  ap- 
proach to  that  demarcation.  I  wonder  if  it 
could  be  regularized  in  such  a  Way  that 
there  was  one  line  and  if  there  could  be 
favourable  consideration  to  the  most  norther- 
ly portions  of  the  county  of  Renfrew.  That 
is  really  all  I  ask.  I  draw  to  the  minister's 
attention  again  those  kinds  of  local  anoma- 
lies that  really  irk  people  who  live  in  a  dis- 
trict of  northern  Ontario  and  find  themselves, 
however  few  in  numbers,  unable  to  get  a 
benefit  which  is  as  important  to  them  as  is 
the  Mac-McKeough  licence  tax  cut. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  If  I  could  respond 
briefly,  I  recognize  the  communities  that  the 
honourable  member  identified.  Arnprior— and 
I  believe  Fitzroy  Harbour  is  in  your  riding? 

Mr.  Conway:  That  is  Carleton. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Oh,  that  is  interesting 
because  I  was  a  resident  of  Fitzroy  Harbour 
years  ago.  As  a  matter  of  information  I  am 
sure  you  will  be  pleased  to  know  that  my 
father  worked  on  the  dam  at  Fitzroy  Har- 
bour as  a  steel  helmet  diver.  I  made  a  point 
of  visiting  that  community  about  two  years 
ago  looking  for  some  people  who  were  there 
when  the  construction  was  going  on.  I  could 
not  find  anybody.  I  was  very  young  at  that 
time,  but  we  always  considered  Fitzroy  Har- 
bour, which  is  not  very  far  from  Arnprior, 
as  being  southern  Ontario. 


In  fact,  those  of  us  who  live  in  northern 
Ontario  really  think  North  Bay  is  in  southern 
Ontario.  I  think  the  member  from  North 
Bay  would  agree  with  me.  Parry  Sound  is 
southern  Ontario.  Sudbury  is  the  border- 
line; really  that  is  the  entrance  to  northern 
Ontario.  So  you  get  all  these  anomalies  the 
member  was  speaking  about— these  grey 
areas  that  are  very  difficult  to  deal  with. 

But  we  have  a  number  of  demarcation 
lines,  as  the  member  referred  to  them.  Each 
ministry  that  delivers  different  services 
would  obviously  have  a  different  need  for  a 
different  demarcation  line. 

I  think  the  line  we  have  established  north 
of  Algonquin  Park  is  a  very  reasonable  one- 
one  that  gives  us  the  buffer  zone  of  Algonquin 
Park.  It  doesn't  create  too  much  of  a  problem. 
I  realize  1,500  people  are  upset;  they  feel 
they  are  being  shortchanged.  It  is  one  of  the 
problems  we  have  in  setting  up  a  region  area 
division.  I  hope  we  can  try  to  lessen  that 
impact  as  much  as  possible  and  we  will  cer- 
tainly do  that  with  assistance  for  the  fireball. 
Mr.  Wildman:  I  listened  with  interest  to 
the  exchange  between  my  colleague  from 
Renfrew  North  and  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs.  I  would  certainly  hope  the  member 
was  not  suggesting  the  benefit  the  students  of 
Arnprior  get  should  somehow  be  removed  by 
setting  up  one  demarcation  line.  Two  relatives 
of  mine,  great-aunts  who  live  in  Arnprior, 
spent  their  whole  lives  in  the  education  sys- 
tem and  would  be  very  unhappy  that  the 
students  of  Arnprior  might  somehow  lose  the 
benefit  they  are  now  experiencing.  The  young 
travellers'  program  is  a  very  good  program  in 
bringing  students  from  more  distant  places. 
However,  I  must  admit  I  was  somewhat  sur- 
prised to  find  out  that  Arnprior  was  included 
in  the  visit  to  Queen's  Park. 

Mr.  Conway:  The  honourable  member  may 
rest  assured  that  was  not  my  intention. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  am  sure  it  wasn't. 

I  welcomed  the  comments  of  the  minister 
with  regard  to  the  member's  request  for  him 
to  look  at  the  possibility  of  assistance  for  a 
firehall  to  the  small  community  in  Nipissing 
in  his  riding.  I  would  hope  that  if  the  minister 
is  prepared  to  look  at  that  seriously,  that  he 
will  look  at  the  application  that  has  been 
made  by  Hawk  Junction  which— there's  no 
question— is  in  northern  Ontario  and  has 
applied  for  assistance  for  the  construction  of 
a  firehall  to  house  the  fire  truck  that  the 
minister  himself  delivered  to  Hawk  a  few 
years  ago.  We  had  a  good  afternoon.  I  think 
they  presented  the  minister  with  a  silver  or 
golden  fire  hat. 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4361 


Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  still  have  it. 

Mr.  Wildman:  You  still  have  it?  It  was  a 
beautiful  symbol  of  all  that  is  right  with  fire 
protection  in  northern  Ontario.  I  just  got  a 
plaque  out  of  that  but  I  appreciated  the 
plaque.  It  is  in  my  office.  I  would  hope  that 
the  minister  would  look  carefully  at  the 
application  made  by  the  fire  brigade  in  Hawk 
Junction  for  assistance  to  build  their  firehall 
because,  as  the  minister  knows,  the  Algoma 
Central  Railroad  made  a  commitment  at  the 
time  the  fire  truck  was  presented  to  Hawk 
Junction  to  provide  housing  for  the  truck. 
They  are  still  able  to  use  that,  although  I 
think  the  ACR  would  like  them  to  move  into 
another  facility  and  the  fire  brigade  them- 
selves would  like  to  move  as  well  because 
the  location  that  is  being  provided  by  the 
railway  is  not  the  best. 

I  have  a  letter  the  minister  sent  me  dated 
October  24  in  which  he  said  the  ministry  is 
reviewing  the  application  by  Hawk  Junction 
for  isolated  communities  assistance  and  that 
he  hoped  he  could  provide  a  response  in  the 
near  future.  I  would  hope  the  future  is  now 
and  that  the  minister  could  provide  us  with 
a  response  and  also  respond  specifically  to 
why  it  has  taken  so  long  for  Searchmont  to 
get  a  response  to  its  application  for  more 
adequate  fire  protection  equipment,  since  the 
representative  of  the  fire  marshal's  office, 
Merv  Neidraver  stated  in  January  1980  that 
they  should  get  it. 

It  looked  as  if  they  were  going  to  get  it, 
and  yet  the  fire  brigade  there  has  not  heard 
anything  from  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs  since  January  1980.  I  would  hope  the 
applications  made  by  Aweres  township  for 
assistance  and  the  application  that  is  going  to 
be  made  in  Goulais  will  not  somehow  hold 
up  what  has  been  an  ongoing  discussion  since 
January  1980  for  Searchmont. 

Certainly  there  is  no  question  those  other 
communities  need  fire  protection,  and  I  am 
glad  the  ministry  has  changed  its  criteria,  its 
guidelines,  so  that  it  now  is  possible  for  those 
two  communities,  Aweres  township  and 
Goulais  River,  to  apply  for  protection  as  did 
Batchawana  under  that  program.  I  want  to 
emphasize  that  it  has  been  some  time  since 
Searchmont  heard  what  is  happening  and  I 
would  hope  the  minister  could  respond  in 
relation  to  those  two  applications. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  ap- 
preciate the  honourable  member's  concern 
with  regard  to  those  small  communities.  The 
Hawk  Junction  application,  as  I  pointed  out 
to  him,  is  being  reviewed. 


I  think  the  whole  thrust  of  those  applica- 
tions is  to  make  sure  there  is  a  local  involve- 
ment, because  in  an  unorganized  community 
if  there  isn't  the  dedication  to  a  project  so 
that  there  is  some  ongoing  responsibility,  we 
lose  the  whole  thrust.  I  don't  think  it  is  our 
intention  to  go  out  and  hand  out  fire  trucks 
or  to  hand  out  all  types  of  financial  assist- 
ance for  projects  because  one  person  or  two 
persons  applied.  We  would  like  to  get  the 
feeling  of  consensus.  We  ask,  "What  is  your 
contribution?  We  will  help  you,  but  help 
yourself  a  little  bit  and  we  will  top  it  off." 
This  is  what  we  have  been  doing.  I  can 
assure  the  member  that  we  will  resolve  those 
problems  as  quickly  as  we  can. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  we  have  had  some 
delays  with  respect  to  the  delivery  of  fire 
equipment.  The  fire  marshal  has,  in  his  wis- 
dom, made  some  modification  to  the  equip- 
ment and  rightly  so.  I  think  they  have  come 
a  long  way  in  the  last  three  or  four  years 
in  designing  equipment  that  really  fits  the 
needs  of  the  unorganized  communities,  in 
which  up  to  that  time— let's  be  honest— there 
was  some  reluctance  to  go  into  that  field  be- 
cause we  all  thought  of  big  tankers  and  big 
hydrants  and  all  this  type  of  thing  and  lad- 
ders that  would  go  up  four  or  five  storeys. 
That  was  not  required  in  northern  Ontario. 

We  have  come  a  long  way  and  it  is  the 
support  of  the  field  staff  of  the  fire  marshal's 
office,  in  co-operation  with  our  staff  and  the 
unorganized  communities,  that  has  changed 
that  thinking.  So  we  are  getting  modifica- 
tions and  improvements  to  the  equipment 
itself. 

I  can  assure  the  members  we  will  expedite 
those  applications  as  quickly  as  we  can,  be- 
cause we  are  getting  to  that  time  of  the  year 
when  that  equipment  should  be  in  place- 
there  is  just  no  question  about  it— and  I  will 
personally  take  an  interest  and  make  sure 
those  are  looked  after. 

Mr.  Wildman:  In  the  last  couple  of  mo- 
ments, Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  just  say  to 
the  minister  I  appreciate  and  support  his 
comments  about  the  need  for  local  involve- 
ment and  local  commitment.  There  is  no 
question  in  the  case  of  Searchmont  that 
there  have  been  serious  efforts  on  the  part 
of  the  local  community  to  provide  for  its 
own  fire  protection.  As  I  said,  it  originally 
got  its  equipment  before  the  program  was 
in  place.  Also,  the  community  of  Hawk  Junc- 
tion has  obtained  grants  or  assistance  from 
the  local  private  sector  to  purchase  materials 
for   its   building.    So   there  has   been   an   at- 


4362 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tempt  on  its  part  as  well  to  provide  assist- 
ance for  erecting  the  building  on  its  own. 

The  community  of  Goulais  River  is  meet- 
ing this  evening  with  Peter  Merritt  from  the 
minister's  northeastern  region  and  with  rep- 
resentatives from  the  fire  marshal's  office  to 
talk  about  the  formation  of  a  local  fire 
brigade  there,  and  how  it  might  go  about 
applying  for  equipment  under  next  year's 
program.  As  the  minister  is  probably  also 
aware,  Aweres  township,  after  all  the  con- 
troversy between  him  and  myself  about  it, 
is  now  considered  by  the  ministry  to  be  pos- 
sibly eligible.  It  has  organized  a  committee 
and  is  working,  I  think,  very  carefully  and 
cautiously  in  making  certain  that  it  does 
have  the  numbers  of  people  locally  inter- 
ested and  involved,  and  a  location  available 
for  the  construction  of  a  hall.  So  its  applica- 
tion can  be  seen  to  be  one  that  can  be  ap- 
proved by  the  ministry  when  it  finally  is 
decided. 


This  program  is  a  needed  one  that,  I 
think,  despite  the  comments  sometimes  made 
about  the  minister  or  his  parliamentary 
assistant,  about  the  delivery  of  fire  trucks 
with  sirens  blaring  and  lights  flashing— the 
jokes  that  are  sometimes  made  about  that- 
all  of  us  recognize  as  one  that  is  necessary, 
as  something  that  had  to  be.  It  really  was 
brought  in  even  before  this  ministry  was 
created,  when  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Re- 
sources initially  got  involved  with  isolated 
communities  assistance,  and  I  am  glad  it  has 
now  continued  and  grown  under  the  Minis- 
try of  Northern  Affairs. 

Item  2  agreed  to. 
Item  3  agreed  to. 
Vote  703  agreed  to. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Bemier,  the  com- 
mittee of  supply  reported  certain  resolutions. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4363 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4335) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

BAIL  PROGRAMS 

388.  Mr.  Warner:  1.  Will  the  Attorney 
General  advise  the  House  when  clear,  pub- 
licly available  guidelines  for  justices  of  the 
peace  regarding  who  is  acceptable  as  a  surety 
will  be  available?  2.  Will  the  Attorney  General 
require  reasons  for  the  rejection  of  a  surety 
in  writing  from  the  justice  of  the  peace?  3. 
When  will  the  Attorney  General  allow  an 
appeal  procedure  regarding  the  rejecting  of 
a  surety?  What  form  will  the  appeal  pro- 
cedure encompass?  4.  When  will  the  duty 
counsel  be  available  on  a  regular  basis  for 
estreatment  court?  5.  Will  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral enter  into  a  co-operative  agreement  with 
the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services  to 
ensure  joint  planning  and  funding  on  bail 
programs?  6.  What  is  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral's policy  on  access  to  remand  prisoners? 

7.  When  will  the  government's  system  of 
justice  return  to  the  presumption  of  inno- 
cence as  the  basis  for  a  policy  on  remands? 

8.  Will  the  Attorney  General,  in  co-operation 
with  the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services, 
establish  ground  rules  and  procedures  for  a 
system  of  bail  hostels  where  needed?  Will 
the  Attorney  General  table  the  guidelines? 
(Tabled  October  31,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  1.  It  is  not  my  in- 
tention to  propose  guidelines  for  justices  of 
the  peace  with  respect  to  the  acceptability 
of  sureties.  As  I  have  said  before,  I  consider 
it  extremely  difficult,  if  not  possibly  undesir- 
able, to  attempt  to  lay  down  a  set  of  guide- 
lines which  might  serve  as  appropriate  bench- 
marks for  the  acceptance  of  a  surety  by  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  as  there  are  so  many 
varying  circumstances.  A  very  real  danger 
exists  that  by  defining  certain  items  that  must 
be  considered  undue  emphasis  will  be  placed 
upon  them.  The  type  of  factors  that  the 
justice  of  the  peace  may  want  to  take  into 
account  in  deciding  whether  or  not  a  par- 
ticular individual  is  a  suitable  surety,  may 
include  the  following: 

Roots  of  the  prospective  surety  in  the  com- 
munity; his  general  character  and  reputation; 
whether  or  not  there  is  any  suggestion  that 
he  acted  or  has  acted  with  the  co-accused  in 
a  joint  criminal  venture;  his  or  her  ability  to 
control  the  accused  and  to  ensure  that  the 
accused  lives  up  to  the  terms  of  his  recogni- 
zance including  his  attendance  at  trial;  age 
of  the  surety;  whether  or  not  the  surety  is 


acting  under  duress;  financial  resources  of 
the  surety;  employment  record  of  the  surety; 
length  of  time  the  surety  has  known  the 
accused;  whether  or  not  the  surety  is  surety 
for  any  other  person;  whether  or  not  the 
surety  appears  to  be  in  the  business  of  provid- 
ing bail;  whether  or  not  the  surety  intends  to 
remain  within  the  jurisdiction  until  the  trial  is 
over;  whether  or  not  the  surety  understands 
clearly  the  obligation  placed  upon  him;  and 
so  on. 

I  am  sure  I  could  easily  add  many  more 
factors  to  this  list,  but  the  one  thing  that  is 
clear  is  that  any  list  could  never  be  exhaus- 
tive. It  would  moreover  be  potentially  mis- 
leading for  any  such  a  partial  list  to  be 
promulgated  as  having  any  sort  of  official 
sanction.  It  is  an  obvious  principle  of  our 
law  that  a  judicial  officer,  be  he  a  justice  of 
the  peace  or  a  provincial  court  judge,  must 
exercise  his  discretion  judicially;  failure  to 
do  so  may  give  rise  to  a  prerogative  remedy 
if  the  officer  either  exceeds  his  jurisdiction, 
or  if  he  refuses  to  address  his  mind  to  the 
issues  before  him.  Moreover,  it  is  surely  no 
easier  to  lay  down  rules  or  guidelines  as  to 
who  may  or  may  not  be  acceptable  as  a 
surety  than  it  is  to  lay  out  all  the  circum- 
stances under  which  a  justice  of  the  peace 
may  or  may  not  be  satisfied  whether  to  re- 
lease an  accused  from  custody. 

There  is  no  express  provision  in  the  Crim- 
inal Code  for  requiring  any  sort  of  qualifica- 
tion for  proposed  sureties.  It  would  be  un- 
reasonable to  suppose  that  a  justice  of  the 
peace  is  bound  to  accept  as  a  surety  every 
person  put  forward  by  an  accused.  When 
one  examines  the  Criminal  Code,  it  provides 
no  guidance  on  the  question  of  the  suffi- 
ciency of  any  surety.  The  Ouimet  committee 
that  drafted  the  amendments  to  the  Criminal 
Code,  commonly  referred  to  as  the  Bail 
Reform  Act,  felt  that  the  exercise  of  the 
justice's  discretion  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  a 
surety  should  not  be  controlled  by  detailed 
regulation,  nor  is  it  capable  of  being  so  con- 
trolled. The  committee  also  felt  that  it 
should  not  be  controlled  by  administrative 
direction,  issued  either  by  law  enforcement 
officers  or  officials  concerned  with  the  admin- 
istration of  justice.  This  position  is  one  with 
which  I  have  no  quarrel.  Justices  of  the 
peace  undergo  periodic  training,  and  this  is 
one  area  which  I  am  assured  by  the  Chief 
Judge  of  the  Provincial  Court,  His  Honour 
F.  C.  Hayes,  will  continue  to  be  stressed 
during  their  educational  programs. 


4364 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


2.  The  approval  of  sureties  is  part  and 
parcel  of  the  judicial  interim  release  process, 
as  laid  down  in  Part  XIV  of  the  Criminal 
Code.  It  is,  once  again,  a  judicial  function 
of  the  justice  of  the  peace,  and  assuming  that 
I  as  Attorney  General  have  the  power  to  do 
so,  it  would  not  be  appropriate  to  require 
justices  of  the  peace  to  provide  written 
reasons  for  their  decision  in  this  area.  An 
order  for  release  subject  to  certain  conditions 
is  subject  to  review,  as  laid  out  in  section 
457(5)  of  the  Criminal  Code.  Any  changes 
in  this  area  will,  of  course,  have  to  be  made 
by  the  Parliament  of  Canada. 

3.  As  I  have  noted  above,  the  appeal 
procedure  is  already  in  place  in  the  Criminal 
Code.  An  accused  may  always  seek  a  review 
of  the  justice's  decision  made  during  the 
judicial  interim  release  process.  Section 
457(5)  of  the  Criminal  Code  sets  out  in 
detail  how  this  is  to  be  done.  The  province 
would  not  be  able  to  set  up  a  similar  pro- 
cedure because  this  is  a  matter  that  falls 
within  federal  jurisdiction. 

4.  I  do  not  feel  it  is  essential  to  have  duty 
counsel  at  estreatment  court.  Many  sureties 
come  to  court  already  having  retained 
counsel,  and  those  who  do  not  are  always 
given  the  opportunity  to  seek  counsel  or 
apply  for  legal  aid.  If  an  adjournment  is 
requested  by  a  surety  to  seek  counsel  or 
apply  for  legal  aid,  it  is  almost  never  refused. 
I  am  informed  that  in  fact  this  situation  very 
rarely  arises.  If  a  surety  wishes  further  time 
to  fulfil  his/her  obligations  as  a  surety  (in 
other  words,  to  locate  the  accused  and  turn 
him  over  to  the  authorities),  here  again, 
further  time  is  always  allowed.  Estreatment 
court  is  a  court  of  equity  and  in  a  sense  does 
not  operate  on  the  adversary  system.  Apart 
from  advising  sureties  as  to  how  to  apply  for 
legal  aid,  the  duty  counsel  would  have  little 
or  no  function.  However,  I  will  discuss  the 
matter  with  the  director  of  legal  aid  and 
seek  his  opinion  as  to  the  necessity  and 
practicality  of  having  a  duty  counsel  in 
estreatment  court. 

5.  I  am  unclear  as  to  the  point  of  this 
question.  I  do  not  consider  it  desirable  for 
the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General  to  be 
involved  in  either  the  planning  or  funding 
of  any  bail  projects.  It  is  my  understanding 
that  the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services  is 
at  present  funding  and  planning  a  bail 
project  which  has  to  do  with  the  provision 
of  funds  to  obtain  living  accommodation  for 
persons  on  bail  who  require  a  home  address. 
Our  ministry  is  providing  the  Ministry  of 
Correctional  Services  with  advice  and  assist- 


ance when  required,  and  other  than  that  I 
do  not  feel  that  our  ministry  should  be 
further  involved  with  this  project. 

6.  This  ministry  does  not  formulate  policy 
in  regard  to  access  to  remand  prisoners.  The 
policy  of  who  is  allowed  to  visit  prisoners, 
remand  or  otherwise,  and  when,  is  set  by 
the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services.  How- 
ever, I  am  informed  that  the  policy  in  regard 
to  remand  prisoners  is  more  liberal  than  for 
those  serving  sentences,  and  counsel,  of 
course,  may  have  access  to  their  clients  at  all 
times. 

7.  I  feel  that  your  question  is  somewhat 
unclear.  However,  I  assume  that  you  refer  to 
the  decision  to  grant  or  deny  bail  rather  than 
to  remand.  T  should  point  out  that  the  pre- 
sumption of  innocence  is  an  evidentiary 
burden  at  trial  only.  The  burden  of  proof  at 
a  show  cause  hearing  depends  on  the  par- 
ticular provision  of  the  Criminal  Code  under 
consideration.  While  the  onus  of  showing 
whv  an  accused  should  be  detained  in  most 
instances  rests  on  the  crown,  in  certain  speci- 
fied circumstances  the  Parliament  of  Canada 
has  seen  fit  to  reverse  this  onus.  There  are 
only  two  reasons  for  the  requiring  of  a  deten- 
tion order  or  conditional  release.  The  first 
(nrimary)  reason  is  to  ensure  the  attendance 
of  th«  accused  in  court  for  his  trial.  The 
second  (secondary)  is  to  ensure  that  the 
public  is  protected,  having  regard  to  the 
substantial  likelihood  that  an  accused  may,  if 
released  from  custody,  commit  a  further 
criminal  offence  or  interfere  with  the  admin- 
istration of  justice.  Although  one  of  the  areas 
into  which  inquiries  may  be  made  is  the 
probability  that  the  accused  has  committed 
the  crime  charged,  the  justice  of  the  peace 
does  not  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  accused,  he  merely  determines  whether 
m  fact  the  accused  is  a  suitable  candidate 
for  bail.  These  procedures,  being  part  of  the 
Criminal  Code,  fall  under  federal  legislative 
jurisdiction. 

8.  This  is  a  matter  which  falls  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Ministry  of  Correctional 
Services  only.  It  is  not  desirable  that  the 
Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General  should  be- 
come involved  in  the  setting  up  of  bail 
hostels.  I  understand  that  the  Ministry  of 
Correctional  Services  is  presently  funding  a 
project  along  such  lines.  Again,  we  are  willing 
to  provide  advice  and  counsel  as  required. 

FAMILY  LAW  COMMISSIONERS 

389.  Mr.  Warner:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  advise  the  House  how  family  law 
commissioners     of    the     Supreme    Court    of 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4365 


Ontario  are  appointed;  to  whom  are  they 
responsible;  what,  if  any,  age  limitations 
exist  for  appointees;  and  to  whom  would 
complaints  regarding  their  conduct  and 
reports  be  directed?  (Tabled  November  3, 
1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Family  law  commis- 
sioners are  appointed  by  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor in  Council  upon  the  recommendation 
of  the  Attorney  General. 

Pursuant  to  section  19(1)  of  the  Divorce 
Act  and  rule  803a  of  the  Rules  of  Practice, 
upon  a  reference  by  a  judge  of  the  High 
Court,  the  family  law  commissioner  holds  a 
hearing  and  makes  a  report  in  respect  to 
custody  and  maintenance  pursuant  to  the 
Divorce  Act.  Pursuant  to  sections  71,  72,  75 
and  97  of  the  Judicature  Act,  with  the 
consent  of  counsel  and  upon  reference  by  a 
judge  of  the  High  Court,  a  family  law  com- 
missioner may  act  as  an  official  referee  to 
hold  a  hearing  and  make  a  report  in  respect 
of  division  of  property,  support  or  custody 
under  the  Family  Law  Reform  Act.  The 
reports  of  the  commissioner  are  subject  to 
confirmation  by  the  referring  judge.  In  addi- 
tion, family  law  commissioners  conduct  pre- 
trials with  a  view  to  narrowing  and,  if  pos- 
sible, resolving  the  issues  in  dispute  between 
the  parties. 

Family  law  commissioners  are  officers  of 
the  court  and  are  therefore  responsible  to  the 
Attorney  General. 

There  are  no  age  limitations  for  ap- 
pointees. 

As  mentioned  above,  the  reports  of  the 
family  law  commissioners  are  subject  to  con- 
firmation by  a  judge.  If  counsel  are  not  satis- 
fied with  the  report  of  the  commissioner, 
they  mav  argue  the  matter  before  the 
Supreme  Court  judge  who  heard  the  case.  If 
still  not  satisfied,  an  appeal  from  the  judge's 
decision  confirming  the  report  may  be  taken 
to  the  divisional  court. 

TEACHERS'  PENSIONS 

390.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Minister 
of  Education  indicate  whether  or  not  section 
3  and  section  20(3)  of  the  Teachers'  Super- 
annuation Act,  1975,  permit  the  Teachers' 
Superannuation  Commission  to  designate  part 
of  a  teacher's  salary  in  1975  as  a  retirement 
gratuity  and,  further,  decide  that  this  portion 
should  not  be  recognized  for  superannuation 
purposes?  Will  the  minister  also  indicate 
whether  or  not  these  same  sections  would 
allow  the  Teachers'  Superannuation  Commis- 
sion to  decide  that  the  teacher  has  been  paid 


too  much  pension  in  each  of  the  five  years 
since  his  retirement,  that  he  must  pay  back 
the  overpayment,  and  that  his  future  pension 
payments  will  reflect  the  retroactive  decision 
of  the  commission  to  discount  part  of  his 
1975  salary  for  pension  purposes?  (Tabled 
November  3,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Section  3  of  the 
Teachers'  Superannuation  Act  indicates  that 
"it  is  the  duty  of  the  commission  to  admin- 
ister this  act,  and  in  so  doing  it  shall  deter- 
mine the  right  of  every  applicant  to  receive 
an  allowance  or  a  refund  and  the  amount 
thereof."  Since  the  amount  of  a  pension  is 
affected  by  three  things,  the  age  of  the 
person  at  the  time  of  retirement,  the  number 
of  years  of  credit  in  the  fund  at  retirement 
and  the  average  salary  over  the  best  seven 
years  of  service,  the  commission  does  have 
the  right  to  determine  what  payment  of 
money  to  the  teacher  constitutes  salary  for 
pension  purposes  in  the  same  way  as  Revenue 
Canada  has  the  right  to  determine,  subject 
to  ratification  by  the  courts,  as  to  what  is 
salary  for  income  tax  purposes. 

Each  year  the  commission  issues  instruc- 
tions to  employers  as  to  what  amounts  are 
subject  to  a  deduction  for  pension  purposes 
and  what  amounts  are  not  subject  to  such 
a  deduction.  A  pension  is  computed  on  the 
basic  salary  paid  to  a  teacher  and  it  is  not 
meant  that  a  person's  salary  should  be  arti- 
ficially increased  in  the  last  seven  years  so 
that  the  pension  paid  would  reflect  other  than 
the  basic  salary.  For  this  reason  the  commis- 
sion has  excluded  special  payments  in  the 
determination  of  salary  for  pension  purposes. 
One  of  these  special  payments  has  been  a 
retirement  gratuity. 

When  it  was  determined  that  boards  had 
not  always  adhered  to  these  instructions,  the 
commission  did  check  the  pension  calculation 
for  the  last  five  years  in  an  attempt  to  find 
out  whether  or  not  abnormally  high  pavments 
were  reported  as  salary.  Where  such  pay- 
ments were  apparent,  a  check  was  made 
with  the  boards  concerned  to  see  why  the 
salaries  had  been  inflated.  If  the  salary 
reported  was  based  on  retirement  gratuities 
the  pensions  were  recalculated  and  the  over- 
payments requested. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  commission's  soli- 
citor that  overpayments  of  pensions  should 
be  returned  to  the  commission  in  the  same 
way  as  are  underpayments  to  the  pensioner. 
The  underpayments  are  made  in  a  lump  sum 
whereas  the  overpayments  are  collected  over 
a  period  of  time  so  that  there  is  not  an  undue 
hardship  on  the  pensioner. 


4366 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


OPP  RADAR  UNITS 

391.  Mr.  Van  Home:  How  accurate  are 
nonstatic  radar  machines  that  are  used  by 
the  Ontario  Provincial  Police?  Will  the  Soli- 
citor General  check  and  report  on  the  radar 
unit  used  by  officer  5673,  of  unit  0310,  at 
9:06  a.m.  on  October  13,  1980?  (Tabled 
November  3,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  MDR  1  radar 
unit  is  accurate  to  within  0.05  per  cent. 

The  radar  set  used  by  officer  5673  at  9:06 
a.m.  on  October  13  was  purchased  new  in 
Mav  of  1979.  At  8.30  a.m.  on  October  13  the 
unit  was  checked  for  accuracy  prior  to  the 
constable  proceeding  on  patrol.  It  was  work- 
ing properly. 

TROUT  IMPORTS 

393.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources  indicate  what  amount 
of  trout  fish  was  imported  into  Ontario  during 
the  calendar  years  1978,  1979?  (Tabled 
November  4,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  The  preponderance  of 
trout  imported  into  Ontario  are  frozen, 
hatchery-reared  rainbow  trout  from  Den- 
mark, Japan,  Uruguay  and  the  United  States. 


1,644,000  lb  and  1,756,000  lb  were  im- 
ported in  1978  and  1979  respectively.  There 
were  also  some  importations  from  Nova 
Scotia  and  Manitoba  in  these  two  years. 

No  figures  are  available  for  the  import  of 
wild  trout,  although  quantities  are  thought 
to  be  small.  No  live  trout  or  eggs  were  im- 
ported into  Ontario  during  1978  or  1979, 
primarily  due  to  stringent  federal  fish  health 
regulations  aimed  at  preventing  the  importa- 
tion of  diseased  fish. 

FOREST  CUTTING  PRACTICES 

396.  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Ministry 
of  Natural  Resources  table  the  number  of 
timber  comnanies  that  were  charged  under 
section  21  of  regulation  159,  RRO  1970  of 
the  Crown  Timber  Act  in  regard  to  wasteful 
cutting  practices  in  1979-80  and  the  current 
year?  Please  provide  the  names  of  the  com- 
panies, the  amount  of  the  fine,  and  the  reason 
for  the  charge.  (Tabled  November  4,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  A  table  has  been  prepared 
showing  the  licensees  who  have  been  charged 
under  the  Crown  Timber  Act  in  regard  to 
wasteful  cutting  practices  in  1979-80  and  the 
current  year  to  date. 


PENALTIES  IMPOSED  UNDER  THE  CROWN  TIMBER  ACT 

FOR  WASTEFUL  PRACTICES  DURING 

1979-80  and  1980-81  (to  date) 


Licensee 

Kimberly-Clark 

of  Canada  Limited 
Algonquin  Forestry  Authority 
Bracebridge  Lumber 

Company  Limited 

Kearney  Lumber  Limited 
Spruce  Falls  Power  and  Paper 

Company  Limited' 
*Chantier  Co-operative  De  Barker 
Bois  A.  Lachance  Lumber  Limited 
Abitibi-Price  Incorporated 
Cochrane  Enterprises  Limited 
L.  Blais 

R.  Whitfield 

Midway  Lumber  Mill  Limited 


1979  -  80 

Penalty 

Reason  for  charge 

i   497.68 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

leaving  merchantable  trees 

2,586.00 

leaving  high  stumps 

80.64 

not  utilizing  merchantable   logs 

long-butting 

leaving  lodged  trees 

53.00 

leaving  high  stumps 

141.70 

leaving  high  stumps 

leaving  merchantable  trees 

143.55 

unauthorized  cutting 

49.77 

leaving  merchantable  trees 

707.00 

leaving  high  stumps 

635.00 

leaving  high  stumps 

160.18 

not  utilizing  merchantable   logs 

leaving  high  stumps 

533.18 

leaving  merchantable  trees 

224.71 

not    utilizing    sound    straight    logs 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

leaving  high  stumps 

NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4367 


Licensee 

Alec  Boudeleau 

Murray  N.  Joseph 


Fred  Riddick 


Frank  Warne 
Claudet  Lapoint 
Laurent  Godet 


1980  -  81 

Penalty 

Reason  for  charge 

$      54.40 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

leaving  high  stumps 

386.06 

not   utilizing   sound   straight   logs 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

leaving  high  stumps 

leaving  lodged  trees 

long-butting 

7.40 

not    utilizing   sound    straight   logs 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

longJbutting 

90.42 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

122.84 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

66.36 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

*With  reference  to  the  answer  to  question  156  tabled  on  May  27,  1980,  it  should  be 
noted  that  the  reason  for  the  charge  in  this  instance  should  have  been  for  unauthorized 
cutting  only. 


FOREST  CLEAR-CUTTING 

397.  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources  provide  the  size  of  the 
three  largest  forest  clear-cuts  within  the 
licensed  areas  of:  1.  Boise  Cascade  Limited. 
2.  Great  Lakes  Forest  Products  Limited.  3. 
Abitibi  Paper  Company  Limited.  4.  Kim- 
bely-Clark  of  Canada  Limited.  5.  Spruce 
Falls  Power  and  Paper  Company  Limited? 
Please  provide  the  location  of  these  clear- 
cuts,  when  they  were  cut,  who  approved  the 
clear-cuts,    the    extent    of    any    artificial    or 


natural    regeneration    on    the    sites?    (Tabled 
November  4,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  The  annual  compilation 
of  areas  of  clear-cut  does  not  record  the  size 
of  each  individual  cutover,  separately.  To 
provide  the  requested  information  on  the 
three  largest  clear-cuts,  their  location,  when 
they  were  cut,  and  the  extent  of  their  regen- 
eration would  require  a  special,  detailed 
study  of  approximately  two  man-years'  dura- 
tion. Approval  of  annual  plans  for  cutting 
operations  to  be  undertaken  by  a  licensee  is 
made  at  the  district  level. 


4368  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 


Monday,  November  17,  1980 

Ministry  restructuring,   statement  by   Mr.    Norton    4321 

Increase  in  social  assistance,  statement  by  Mr.  Norton 4322 

Construction  lien  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  McMurtry  4322 

Economic  equality  for  women,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy  ....  4324 

Acid  rain,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy 4325 

Tomato  processing,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Swart  4326 

Duo-Matic    plant    closure,    questions    of    Mr.    Elgie:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr.    Nixon,    Mr. 

Makarchuk   4327 

Payments   to    consulting    firms,    questions    of    Mr.    McCague:    Mr.    T.    P.    Reid,    Mr. 

Makarchuk   4327 

Heritage  languages  program,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Dukszta  4328 

Diabetic  drivers,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Cunningham 4329 

White  Motor  Corporation,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Makarchuk  4329 

Chrysler   research    and    development   centre,    questions    of   Mr.    Elgie:    Mr.    Ruston, 

Mr.    Mancini    4329 

Chemical  storage,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Breaugh,  Mr.  B.  Newman  4330 

Fines  option  program,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Bradley 4330 

Condominium  Ontario,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Philip  4331 

Burlington  gas  explosion,  question  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Bradley 4331 

Municipal  election  ties,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Mancini  4332 

Participation  House,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Isaacs  , 4333 

Norfolk  teachers'  dispute,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Nixon  4333 

Investment   companies'    failure,    questions    of    Mr.    Drea:    Mr.    M.    N.    Davison,    Mr. 

Breithaupt    4334 

Fire  safety,  question  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.   Haggerty 4334 

French-language    advisory    committees,    questions    of    Miss    Stephenson:    Mr.    R.    F. 

Johnston    4334 

Right-to-farm  legislation,  question  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  McKessock  4335 

Petition  re  Ku  Klux  Klan:  Mr.  Warner  4335 

Motion  re  committee  sitting,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to 4335 

Mortgage  Payments  Moratorium  Act,  Bill  196,  Mr.  Makarchuk,  first  reading  4335 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  388-391,  393,  396  and  397  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  4335 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs,  continued:  Mr.  Bernier  4336 

Adjournment    4362 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980  4369 


Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Bail  programs,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:   Mr.  Warner  4363 

Family  law  commissioners,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Warner  4364 

Teachers'  pensions,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Van  Home 4365 

OPP  radar  units,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:   Mr.  Van  Home  4366 

Trout  imports,  question  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Van  Home  4366 

Forest  cutting  practices,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:   Mr.   T.  P.  Reid  4366 

Forest  clear-cutting,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  4367 


4370  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC) 

Bernier,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  (Kenora  PC) 

Bolan,  M.  (Nipissing  L) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Dukszta,  J.  (Parkdale  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C.;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McCague,  Hon.  G.;  Chairman  of  Management  Board;  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

(Dufferin-Simcoe  PC) 
McKessock,  R.  (Grey  L) 

McMurtry,  Hon.  R.;  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  (Eglinton  PC) 
Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 
Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 
Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 
Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 
Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC) 
Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 
Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 


No.  115 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  November  18,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index  of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  <^gggi^>10 


4373 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

UNIVERSITY  STUDY 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  in 
recent  months,  several  meetings  have  been 
held  with  the  members  and  representatives 
of  Executive  Heads  of  Ontario  Universities 
to  discuss  the  future  role  of  the  universities 
in  Ontario. 

The  future  holds  many  challenges  and 
opportunities  for  universities  here  and  around 
the  world.  As  we  approach  a  period  of  pro- 
tracted decline  in  the  traditional  university 
population,  aged  18  to  24,  there  is  great  un- 
certainty about  enrolment.  On  the  other 
hand,  one  can  see  many  opportunities  for 
the  universities  to  contribute  to  society 
through  research,  community  services  in 
responding  to  rising  skill  requirements  in  the 
labour  force  and  in  meeting  the  needs  of 
nontraditional  client  groups. 

Last  Friday,  November  14,  the  Premier 
( Mr.  Davis )  and  I  met  with  representatives 
of  Executive  Heads  of  Ontario  Universities. 
They  presented  a  brief  entitled,  The  Situ- 
ation of  Ontario  Universities.  This  was  pre- 
pared in  response  to  the  Premier's  request 
for  their  view  on  future  direction  for  Ontario 
universities. 

In  its  brief,  the  executive  heads  suggested 
there  should  be  a  study  of  the  role  of  Ontario 
universities  and  of  the  relationship  between 
the  universities,  the  Council  of  Ontario  Uni- 
versities, the  Ontario  Council  on  University 
Affairs  and  the  government. 

I  am  pleased  to  report  that  the  govern- 
ment has  agreed  to  this  suggestion  and  that 
a  broadly  based  committee  will  be  struck  to 
study  the  role  of  the  universities  in  Ontario. 
Within  the  next  few  days  I  will  inform  the 
House  about  the  terms  of  reference  of  the 
study  and  the  makeup  of  this  committee. 

TVONTARIO 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  several  days 
ago  I  told  this  House  I  was  actively  con- 
sidering   the    expansion    of    the    outstanding 


Tuesday,  November  18,  1980 

service  of  TVOntario.  This  afternoon  it  is 
my  pleasure  to  inform  honourable  members 
that,  beginning  immediately,  we  are  under- 
taking a  major  extension  of  the  TVOntario 
network  into  the  Parry  Sound-Nipissing 
district,  the  Timmins  area  and  the  Grey- 
Bruce  area. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Hurrah.  Where  were  you 
this  morning?  You  didn't  come  to  Owen 
Sound  this  morning. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  I  was  up  in  Owen  Sound 
this  morning. 

TVOntario  is  applying  for  licences  from 
the  Canadian  Radio-television  and  Telecom- 
munications Commission.  We  are  negotiating 
for  land  in  Parry  Sound  and  Grey-Bruce.  We 
are  negotiating  co-site  arrangements  with  the 
Canadian  Broadcasting  Corporation  in  Tim- 
mins. If  everything  goes  according  to  plan, 
TVOntario's  full  service  off  air  should  be 
available  in  the  three  areas  in  about  14 
months. 

In  total,  the  network  expansion  into  these 
areas  will  raise  by  approximately  271,000  the 
number  of  people  who  will  be  able  to  receive 
all  of  TVOntario's  programming  directly  off 
air.  In  Parry  Sound-Nipissing,  75,000  will  be 
added  to  the  service;  in  Timmins,  64,000;  in 
Grey-Bruce,  132,000. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That  is  more  like  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  It  is  very  good,  Eddie. 

In  the  Timmins  district,  the  range  of  the 
signal  will  be  Driftwood  in  the  north, 
Matachewan  in  the  south,  east  to  Matheson 
and  just  short  of  Palomar  in  the  west.  The 
North  Bay  signal  will  reach  viewers  north 
to  Martin  River,  Melissa  in  the  south,  Mat- 
tawa  in  the  east  and  west  to  Sudbury.  The 
Owen  Sound  signal  will  reach  people  living 
in  Lions  Head  in  the  north,  Palmerston  and 
Wingham  in  the  south,  east  to  Thornbury 
and  west  to  Kincardine,  including  Chester 
and  Hanover. 

I  would  point  out  that  a  very  large  ma- 
jority of  these  people  live  in  rural  areas 
which  are  not  served  by  cable  today  and 
which  do  not  appear  likely  to  be  served  by 
cable  in  the  near  future.  In  other  words, 
if  they  were  not  able  to  get  TVOntario  off 
air  they  would  likely  not  be  able  to  get  it 
at  all. 


4374 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  estimate  that  the  capital  cost  of  all  this 
important  activity  will  be  approximately 
$3.5  million-$l,245,000  in  Parry  Sound- 
Nipissing;  $1,015,000  in  Timmins  and 
$1,150,000  in  Grey-Bruce.  Using  today's 
technology,  the  expansion  will  mean  an  in- 
crease in  annual  operating  costs  of  about 
$700,000.  This  operating  money  will  come 
from  tax-generated  revenues.  The  capital 
financing  will  come  from  the  proceeds  of  the 
Lottario  lottery. 

As  honourable  members  know,  the  Ontario 
Lottery  Corporation  Act  dedicates  Lottario 
proceeds  to  cultural  and  recreational  activi- 
ties and  facilities.  This  is  the  very  first  Lot- 
tario allocation  that  has  been  made.  Frankly, 
I  cannot  think  of  a  more  useful  way  to 
spend  the  money.  I  would  emphasize  that 
only  the  one-time  capital  investment  in  this 
extension  is  coming  from  lottery  proceeds. 
We  will  not  be  depending  on  lottery  pro- 
ceeds for  the  continuing  operation  of  the 
new  facilities. 

I  had  the  pleasure  of  visiting  the  three 
new  TVOntario  areas  yesterday  and  this 
morning.  Members  will  not  be  surprised 
when  I  tell  them  that  the  news  of  TV- 
Ontario's  expansion  was  greeted  with  tre- 
mendous enthusiasm.  They  will  not  be  sur- 
prised because  they  know  the  service  is  an 
excellent  one  that  a  lot  of  people  want.  We 
decided  to  go  into  these  three  new  areas 
at  the  same  time  because  each  of  them  was 
able  to   claim  similar  priority. 

I  know  members  on  all  sides  of  the  House 
represent  regions  which  equally  want  to  re- 
ceive TVOntario's  signal  off  air.  I  can  tell 
them  here  today  that  nobody,  but  nobody, 
is  being  ignored.  For  the  moment,  however, 
the  three  areas  I  have  announced  today  rep- 
resent the  most  compelling  cases  for  imme- 
diate expansion.  Each  has  shown  unusually 
active  interest  in  getting  TVOntario's  signal. 
Each  has  a  substantial  rural  population  that 
cannot  be  reached  by  cable  and  each  has  a 
regular  VHF  channel  open.  As  honourable 
members  know,  this  type  of  channel  is  the 
easiest  for  people  to  receive  in  their  homes 
and  offers  the  widest  conventional  coverage 
at  the  lowest  cost. 

I  know  all  members  will  want  to  join  with 
me  in  celebrating  this  major  expansion  of 
the  TVOntario  network  on  the  occasion  of 
TVOntario's  tenth  birthday.  I  think  the  ex- 
pansion is  a  great  birthday  present  for  both 
TVO  and  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Can  the  minister  tell  us  why 
we  are  the  last  one  to  get  it  and  why  it  took 
five  years? 


Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  You  are  taking  time  off 
the  question  period,  are  you,  Mr.  Speaker? 
2:10  p.m. 

WORKMEN'S    COMPENSATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  members 
may  recall,  in  January  of  this  year  I  ap- 
pointed Professor  Paul  C.  Weiler  as  my 
special  adviser  to  undertake  a  comprehen- 
sive study  of  Ontario's  workers'  compensa- 
tion system  and  to  make  recommendations 
on  possible  changes  to  existing  substantive 
and  administrative  arrangements.  At  the 
same  time,  I  tabled  a  discussion  paper  which 
suggested  areas  of  possible  reform. 

I  have  distributed  to  each  member,  and 
will  be  tabling  later  today,  the  first  of  two 
reports  of  Professor  Weiler.  The  first  report 
deals  with  four  main  issues:  The  philosophy 
of  workers'  compensation,  the  structure  of 
benefits,  financing  arrangements  and  the 
decision-making  process  from  primary  claims 
through  final  appeals.  I  hope  members  will 
agree,  when  they  have  had  an  opportunity 
to  study  this  first  report,  that  it  is  one  of 
the  most  significant  and  constructive  contri- 
butions to  the  analysis  of  this  critical  topic 
ever  made.  I  do  not  wish  to  embarrass  the 
author,  Mr.  Weiler,  who  is  with  us  in  the 
gallery  today,  but  it  is  in  my  view  an  extra- 
ordinarily perceptive  and  compelling  piece 
of  work. 

I  would  like  to  say  a  word  or  two  about 
the  process  which  Mr.  Weiler  has  followed. 
As  the  report  indicates,  he  has  met  and 
conferred  with  virtually  every  person  or 
organization  with  an  interest  in  workers' 
compensation  in  Ontario,  including  members 
of  both  opposition  parties.  In  addition  to 
consultations  with  officials  and  experts  in 
Ontario,  in  other  provinces  and  in  the  United 
States,  he  received  more  than  50  written 
briefs  and  held  over  75  meetings.  The  em- 
phasis throughout  was  on  informality  and 
the  free  and  candid  expression  of  facts, 
opinions  and  insights  by  persons  and  orga- 
nizations with  interest  in  and  knowledge  of 
the  topic.  As  he  says  in  his  report,  this  was 
deliberately  not  a  public  inquisition  on  how 
the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board  handled 
specific  cases  in  the  past.  Rather,  it  was  an 
informal  yet  detailed  probing  aimed  at 
recommending  solutions  to  real  and  pressing 
problems  which,  in  the  author's  view,  require 
early  attention.  I  think  this  first  report  fully 
justifies  the  informal  investigative  approach 
which  has  been  followed. 

While  I  wish  to  refer  briefly  to  some  of  the 
key  recommendations  contained  in  the  report, 
I  do  so  with  a  word  of  caution.  There  are 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4375 


hazards  in  attempting  to  evaluate  individual 
recommendations  in  the  abstract  without 
the  benefit  of  the  analysis  and  reasoning 
upon  which  those  recommendations  are 
based.  Moreover,  the  recommendations  are 
presented  as  a  package  and  the  totality  of 
the  package,  with  its  internal  balance,  should 
be  considered  as  a  whole. 

With  these  caveats,  let  me  turn  to  the 
highlights  of  the  report.  As  to  total  disabil- 
ity, temporary  or  permanent,  Mr.  Weiler 
would  replace  the  existing  formula— that  is, 
75  per  cent  of  the  pre-accident  gross  earn- 
ings—with a  new  one,  namely,  90  per  cent 
of  pre-accident  net  disposable  income  up  to 
an  earning  ceiling  of  250  per  cent  or  $40,000 
at  current  levels  of  the  average  industrial 
wage.  In  addition,  he  proposes  that  an  in- 
jured worker  should  have  necessary  fringe 
benefits  maintained  during  periods  of  dis- 
ability; that  workers'  compensation  should 
be  integrated  with  other  systems  of  income 
maintenance  and  that  compensation  should 
ensure  against  loss  of  normal  retirement 
income. 

As  to  fatal  injuries,  he  recommends  that 
all  surviving  spouses  receive  a  lump  sum 
equal  to  the  income  ceiling  of  the  program. 
In  addition,  those  surviving  spouses  and 
children  who  are  dependent  in  the  true 
sense  of  the  term  as  defined  in  the  report, 
should  receive  a  pension  related  to  the  pre- 
accident  net  disposable  income  of  the  de- 
ceased worker. 

As  to  permanent  partial  disability,  the 
report  recommends  that  all  permanently  dis- 
abled workers— and  that  means  total  or 
partial— should  receive  a  lump  sum  payment 
determined  by  the  degree  of  physical  im- 
pairment and  the  age  of  the  worker  at  the 
time  of  the  injury.  In  addition,  compensation 
should  be  paid  to  replace  90  per  cent  of 
the  net  disposable  income  actually  lost  by 
the  worker  as  a  result  of  the  injury,  that  is, 
90  per  cent  of  the  difference  between  pre- 
accident  and  post-accident  net  disposable 
income.  Recommendations  are  also  made  to 
encourage  disabled  workers  to  return  to 
suitable  available  employment  and  to  en- 
courage employers  to  make  such  alternative 
employment  available. 

As  to  inflation  adjustments,  Mr.  Weiler 
recommends  that  income  ceilings  and  other 
criteria  for  current  compensation  claims 
should  be  determined  in  relation  to  the 
average  industrial  wage,  so  that  the  amounts 
payable  for  future  claims  will  adjust  auto- 
matically to  wage  inflation,  while  the  assess- 
ments of  employer  payrolls  will  generate  the 
necessary  corresponding  revenues.  As  to  the 


method  of  financing  benefit  payments,  the 
report  recommends  that  a  mandatory  plan 
for  experience  rating  of  individual  employ- 
ers be  instituted.  It  further  recommends 
that  the  board  be  empowered  to  recover  the 
unfunded  liability  of  an  employer  for  its 
employees'  injuries  if  that  employer  goes 
out  of  business. 

Finally,  as  to  the  structure  of  decision 
making,  the  report  recommends  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  new  independent  tripartite 
workmen's  compensation  appeals  tribunal 
as  the  final  appeal  authority  over  com- 
pensation claims.  In  addition,  Mr.  Weiler 
recommends  the  establishment  of  independent 
medical  review  panels  to  reach  final  deter- 
minations on  disputed  medical  claims.  He 
advocates  the  establishment  of  a  new  cor- 
porate board,  with  final  authority  for  general 
policy  making,  composed  of  the  chairman  of 
the  board,  the  vice-chairman  of  administra- 
tion and  the  chairman  of  the  appeals  tribunal, 
as  well  as  outside  directors  drawn  from  the 
ranks  of  labour  and  business  and  other  dis- 
ciplines and  areas  of  expertise,  including 
medicine,  economics,  vocational  rehabilita- 
tion and  occupational  health  and  safety. 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  highlights  of 
the  report.  As  I  indicated  previously,  any 
summary  does  not  do  it  justice,  and  I  com- 
mend the  full  text  of  the  report  to  all  mem- 
bers. I  intend  to  see  that  it  is  widely  cir- 
culated to  the  business  and  labour  communi- 
ties across  the  province  and  I  look  forward 
to  receiving  responses  as  soon  as  possible  so 
that  I  may  make  the  appropriate  submissions 
and  recommendations  to  my  cabinet  col- 
leagues. 

Finally,  I  wish  to  remind  members  that 
this  report  covers  the  first  phase  of  a  two- 
phase  procedure.  The  second  report,  which 
Professor  Weiler  intends  to  complete  next 
summer,  will  deal  with  the  relationship  be- 
tween the  system  for  compensating  injured 
workers  and  programs  for  improving  safety 
in  the  work  place;  the  emerging  notion  that 
workers'  compensation  might  be  folded  into 
a  broader  system  for  protecting  everyone 
against  income  loss  due  to  personal  injuries, 
however  caused;  and,  finally,  the  important 
topic  of  industrial  disease  and  its  treatment 
by  workers'  compensation  boards. 

MUNICIPAL  BOUNDARY 
NEGOTIATIONS  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  today  I  will 
be  introducing  a  bill  which  will  assist  munic- 
ipalities to  resolve  boundary  and  boundary- 
related  issues.  This  bill  represents  two  years 
of    consultation    and    work    with    Ontario's 


4376 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


municipal  leaders.  In  September  1978,  urban 
and  rural  municipalities  called  for  an  alterna- 
tive to  bitter  and  costly  confrontations  at  the 
Ontario  Municipal  Board  on  matters  of  an- 
nexations and  amalgamations.  In  August 
1979,  the  government  presented  a  proposal 
for  a  new  process  modelled  on  labour-man- 
agement negotiating  techniques.  The  process 
was  then  tested  in  the  Brantford-Brant  area, 
where  a  comprehensive  agreement  was  reach- 
ed in  the  spring  of  this  year  and  represented 
a  mutually  agreed-to  legislated  conclusion  to 
years  of  discussions  and  controversy. 

Earlier  this  fall  I  released  a  position  paper 
setting  out  a  refined  version  of  the  new 
process.  This  paper  was  prepared  in  consul- 
tation with  a  working  group  representing 
Ontario's  three  municipal  associations.  The 
paper  has  subsequently  been  endorsed  by  the 
boards  of  directors  of  the  Association  of 
Municipalities  of  Ontario  and  the  Rural  On- 
tario Municipal  Association.  The  board  of 
directors  of  the  Association  of  Counties  and 
Regions  of  Ontario  has  not  yet  had  a  chance 
to  consider  the  paper,  but  ACRO  has,  of 
course,  played  a  key  role  in  the  development 
of  this  new  process. 

Section  2  of  the  legislation  to  implement 
the  position  paper  would  authorize  a  munic- 
ipality wanting  to  resolve  an  intermunicipal 
boundary  or  boundary-related  issue  to  apply 
to  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
rather  than  to  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board. 
A  fact-finder  would  be  appointed  under  sec- 
tion 4  of  the  act  to  look  into  the  application. 
If  necessary,  direct,  face-to-face  negotiations 
between  the  municipalities  would  follow. 
These,  I  hope,  would  lead  to  an  agreement 
as  they  did  in  Brantford-Brant.  If  so,  the 
agreement  could  be  implemented  either 
through  legislation  or,  in  certain  circum- 
stances, through  an  order  in  council  issued 
under  section  14  of  the  act. 

If,  however,  there  were  no  agreement,  we 
would  have  a  number  of  options,  one  of 
which  would  be  allowing  the  matter  to  go 
before  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board.  The 
bill  would  amend  the  Municipal  Act  so  as  to 
limit  annexation  and  amalgamation  applica- 
tions to  the  OMB  to  those  involving  un- 
organized territory  and  those  authorized  fol- 
lowing proceedings  under  this  new  legisla- 
tion. 

2:20  p.m. 

It  is  my  hope  that  this  legislation  to  make 
the  Brantford-Brant  process,  as  it  has  be- 
come known,  available  to  other  parts  of  the 
province  will  receive  a  broad  measure  of  sup- 
port so  that  we  can  have  the  necessary  legal 


and    administrative   framework   in    place    by 
early  in  the  new  year. 

HALTON  FINANCIAL  DEFICIT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
further  statement  in  answer  to  a  question 
from  the  member  for  Halton-Burlington  (Mr. 
J.  Reed). 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  answer  ques- 
tions asked  on  Monday,  November  3,  and 
Tuesday,  November  4,  by  the  member  for 
Halton-Burlington. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  Will  the  answer  to  this  question  be 
allowed  to  result  in  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Not  at  this  time. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Will  the  minister  be  prepared 
to  answer  it  during  question  period? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pre- 
pared to  answer  any  question.  Since  this  will 
take  a  few  minutes,  it  should  be  made  as  a 
statement. 

On  November  3,  the  member  transmitted  a 
petition  containing  167  signatures  from  resi- 
dents of  the  regional  municipality  of  Halton 
which  requested  me  to  set  up  a  commission 
of  inquiry  into  the  financial  management  of 
the  region.  The  next  day  he  gave  me  a  second 
petition  from  a  different  group  of  residents 
from  the  region  of  Halton  also  asking  for  a 
commission  of  inquiry.  The  petitioners  cited 
the  existence  of  a  large  deficit  as  the  primary 
cause  of  their  concern. 

After  carefully  reviewing  the  present  situa- 
tion, I  would  like  to  tell  the  House  that  the 
situation  does  not  appear  to  warrant  a  formal 
inquiry.  Our  ministry  has  been  aware  of  the 
difficulties  in  the  financial  affairs  of  Halton 
since  this  summer.  My  staff  has  been  in  close 
communication  with  officials  and  elected 
representatives  of  the  region  to  determine 
what  is  being  done  about  the  problems.  The 
regional  representatives  have  not  remained 
idle  and  have  reacted  quickly  to  find  the 
cause  of  the  problem  and,  we  believe,  to 
correct  it.  The  region  is  undertaking  a  thor- 
ough review  of  its  internal  control  systems 
and  is  now  preparing  a  plan  to  deal  with  its 
accumulated  deficit.  It  is  also  my  under- 
standing that  council  is  contemplating  the 
hiring  or,  indeed,  has  already  hired  a  firm  of 
management  consultants  to  devise  ways  to 
improve  its  administrative  practices. 

In  these  circumstances,  I  am  sure  honour- 
able members  will  agree  the  council  is  taking 
steps  to  investigate  and  correct  the  situation. 
I  believe  this  is  at  this  time  a  much  more 
effective  way  of  dealing  with  the  situation 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


43*77 


than  setting  up  a  commission  of  inquiry.  My 
staff  is,  of  course,  monitoring  this  situation 
closely  and  will  offer  such  advice  and  assis- 
tance as  may  be  required. 

I  might  remind  the  House  we  have  six 
criteria  which  we  use  to  determine  the 
need  for  a  formal  commission  of  inquiry. 
One  or  more  of  these  criteria  must  be  met. 
First,  is  there  evidence  of  such  maladmin- 
istration on  the  part  of  municipal  officials 
as  to  prejudice  local  government?  Second, 
have  criminal  proceedings  been  undertaken? 
Third,  we  ask  if  such  a  commission  might 
make  recommendations  of  such  a  general 
nature  as  to  benefit  municipal  governments 
throughout  the  province.  Fourth,  is  there 
evidence  the  cost  to  the  municipality  of 
holding  an  inquiry,  which  we  estimate  at 
about  $2,000  a  day,  is  justified  by  the  nature 
of  the  problem?  Fifth,  a  commission  may  be 
set  up  if  the  municipality  itself  cannot  or 
will  not  institute  corrective  measures  on  its 
own.  Finally,  a  commission  of  inquiry  may 
be  required  if  the  facts  cannot  be  ascertain- 
ed in  any  other  way. 

While  in  Halton's  case  there  is  little 
doubt  the  systems  of  internal  financial  con- 
trols require  improvements,  I  am  of  the  opin- 
ion none  of  the  above  criteria  has  been  met 
and  that  a  commission  of  inquiry  is  not  the 
appropriate  vehicle  to  use  at  this  time  and 
in  this  particular  case. 

TOMATO  PROCESSING 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a 
point  of  personal  privilege  in  order  to  correct 
the   record. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  either  one  or  the 
other. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rose  the  other 
day  on  a  point  of  privilege  and  you  informed 
me  that  was  to  correct  the  record  so  I  can 
see  some  basis  for  using  both  comments 
today. 

I  would  like  to  start  off  by  saying  that 
the  leader  of  the  third  party  has  once  again 
misinformed  the  House  and  has  given  in- 
correct information  to  the  Legislature.  He 
was  speaking  yesterday  concerning  the  mat- 
ter of  hothouse  tomatoes  which  are  produced 
in  Ontario. 

The  information  provided  to  the  Legis- 
lature was  basically  concerning  the  matter, 
and  I  quote,  "Hothouse  tomatoes  which 
have  been  coming  to  market  for  the  last 
two  months  have  been  kept  off  the  shelves 
of  the  supermarkets  in  the  Loblaw  chain—" 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Just  Loblaws? 


Mr.  Mart  el:  Are  you  the  spokesman  for 
Loblaws? 

Mr.  Mancini:  Just  a  second,  hang  on,  it 
is  coming— 

"And  have  been  appearing  only  irregularly 
in  other  supermarkets  across  the  province 
and  why  as  a  consequence  consumers  have 
had  no  choice  in  many  cases  but  to  buy 
imported  tomatoes." 

The  leader  of  the  third  party  does  not 
understand  the  greenhouse  industry  or  the 
marketing  procedures  used.  It  is  also  evident 
that  he  does  not  understand  the  matter  of 
crop  production.  The  vast  majority  of  crops 
are  produced  in  the  spring,  when  the  average 
yield  is  12.1  pounds  of  tomatoes  per  plant. 
This  crop  is  marketed  readily  to  Ontario, 
Quebec  and  the  Mari times.  The  biggest 
market  is  in  Quebec,  where  two  thirds  of 
all  the  greenhouse  tomatoes  are  sold.  In  the 
fall  the  farmers  are  able  to  produce  only 
3.41  pounds  per  plant. 

Mr.  Foulds:  What  personal  privilege  has 
been  violated? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Which  side  of  the 
House  do  you  think  you're  on? 

Mr.  Mancini:  I  can  see  those  members 
are  really  interested  in  the  greenhouse 
farmers. 

Therefore,  the  quantity  of  tomatoes  avail- 
able for  market  is  much  less.  The  federal 
government,  in  recognizing  this,  has  a  15 
per  cent  duty  on  imported  tomatoes  running 
from  April  1  until  November  1.  After 
November  1  the  duty  is  removed.  This  was 
done  with  the  consent  of  the  greenhouse 
marketing  board. 

In  the  early  fall  when  many  of  our  home- 
grown field  tomatoes  are  going  to  market, 
this  is  also  another  consequence  of  compe- 
tition for  the  greenhouse  grower.  However, 
for  the  months  of  October  and  November- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member 
rose,  as  is  his  right,  to  correct  something 
he  felt  was  misleading  the  House.  I  am  not 
going  to  permit  the  honourable  member  to 
get  up  and  make  a  budget  speech.  If  there 
was  an  incorrect  impression  left,  I  wish  he 
would  bring  his  remarks  to  a  close  as 
quickly   as  possible. 

Mr.  Mancini:  I  would  like  to  apologize 
to  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  for  the  length 
of  the  comment  but  so  little  is  understood, 
especially  by  the  members  to  the  left,  about 
the  greenhouse  industry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Correct  the  record  as  you 
perceive  it  and  then  we  will  get  on  to  the 
regular  business  of  the  House. 


4378 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Mancini:  More  specifically  on  the  mat- 
ter of  shelf  space,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  morning 
I  had  the  opportunity  of  speaking  with  the 
chairman  of  the  greenhouse  marketing 
board- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member 
can  table  the  remainder  of  it  with  the  Clerk 
and  everybody  can  read  it.  I  think  I  have 
been  more  than  tolerant  with  the  honourable 
member.  He  makes  his  point;  if  he  wants  to 
elaborate  further,  he  can  table  it  with  the 
Clerk. 

Interjections. 
2:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order.  The  Leader 
of  the  Opposition,   with  oral  questions. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  It  might  be  more  profitable, 
Mr.  Speaker,  to  direct  the  questions  to  this 
side  of  the  House  instead  of  the  other. 

ORAL   QUESTIONS 

DAY  CARE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services  regarding  the  matter  of  day  care, 
particularly   in   the   Ottawa-Carleton   area. 

An  hon.  member:  There  is  a  by-election 
on  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  You  have  never  been  in- 
terested in  Carleton  before.  You  wouldn't 
know  where  it  is. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  members  opposite  seem 
to  express  a  lot  of  incredulity.  Ottawa-Carle- 
ton is  toward  the  east  end  of  the  province. 
It  is  sort  of  by  the  river.  You  remember 
where  it  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  After  Thursday  you  will 
never  want  to  see  it  again. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  question  period 
started   one  minute  ago. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Would  the  minister  con- 
firm for  this  House  the  information  which 
he  provided  in  the  answer  to  questions  on 
the  Order  Paper  at  one  time,  that  with  his 
vaunted  help  to  Ottawa-Carleton,  with  their 
$120,000  overrun  in  the  day  care  budget, 
the  grand  total  contributed  by  this  level  of 
government  is  $22,500,  roughly  the  salary 
of  one  of  his  office  assistants  in  the  ministry, 
and  that  is  the  total  he  has  contributed  to 
the  cost  overrun  this  year  in  the  Ottawa- 
Carleton  day  care  situation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Could  I  ask  if  the  member  might  repeat  the 
latter  part  of  that  question?  Did  he  say  that 
is  the  total  we  have  contributed  this  year? 


Mr.  S.  Smith:  Yes,  towards  the  overrun. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  cannot  recall  offhand 
the  precise  dollar  figure.  I  can  indicate  that 
the- 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  It  was  $22,500. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  No,  I  do  not  believe  the 
honourable  member  is  correct.  If  he  will  just 
be  patient  for  a  moment,  I  will  give  him  the 
percentage  breakdown.  I  believe  the  first 
$51,000  was  cost  shared  on  the  regular  basis, 
80-20,  with  30  per  cent  coming  from  the 
provincial  government,  50  from  the  federal 
and  20  from  the  municipality.  On  the  balance, 
or  the  difference  between  $52,000  and  the 
total  amount  of  their  overrun,  it  was  cost 
shared  as  between  us  and  the  municipality  at 
50-50,  but  our  50  per  cent  was  also  cost 
shared  by  the  provincial  government.  It  was 
not  strictly  a  pass-through  of  federal  funds, 
if  that  is  the  point  the  member  is  trying  to 
get  at. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Since  on  page  4198  of  Han- 
sard it  will  be  very  clear  that  the  total  pro- 
vincial government  contribution  was  $22,500, 
I  ask  the  minister  to  look  up  his  own  answers, 
which  he  has  provided. 

More  importantly,  could  I  ask  the  minister 
whether  he  could  give  me  some  advice  to 
pass  on  to  a  lady  who  lives  in  Kanata,  a  Mrs. 
Hover  of  Salter  Crescent,  who  is  a  mother 
alone  with  two  children,  aged  five  and  a  half 
and  eight  and  a  half?  At  present,  she  has 
just  recovered  from  an  illness,  has  been  off 
work  for  a  year  and  has  a  new  job.  She  has 
a  student  who  comes  in,  but  comes  in  after 
her  younger  child  arrives  home,  and  it  costs 
her  $30  a  week.  She  earns  $9,360  a  year,  and1 
she  has  determined  that  with  transportation 
and  baby-sitting  and  other  associated  costs 
she  would  be  much  better  off  on  welfare.  She 
has  now  been  on  the  day  care  waiting  list  for 
approximately  four  months,  and  she  has  not 
moved  at  all,  not  at  all,  on  that  waiting  list. 

Can  the  minister  tell  me  what  advice  I 
should  give  to  Mrs.  Hover  in  Kanata  when  in 
point  of  fact  all  he  is  able  to  do  is  con- 
tribute such  a  very  measly  amount  to  the 
problems  in  Ottawa-Carleton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  can't  respond  on  the 
basis  of  the  specific  figures  that  the  member 
has  given  me.  I  have  always  been  rather 
good  in  mathematics,  but  I  won't  rely  upon 
my  mental  calculations  as  he  relates  those 
figures  across  the  House. 

I  will  say  this  in  general  terms:  The  alloca- 
tion of  the  available  subsidies  and  spaces  is  a 
matter  that  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
municipalities  under  the  administration  of 
our  day  care  policy  in  this  province.  I  would 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4379 


reiterate  once  again  it  is  my  conviction— in 
spite  of  the  protests  that  I  know  the  honour- 
able members  from  the  Ottawa  area  have 
raised  in  the  House  when  I  have  brought  this 
to  their  attention— that  there  is  a  substantial 
amount  of  the  subsidy  money  in  the  Ottawa- 
Carleton  area  which  is  presently  going  to 
sort  of  top-end  subsidies  by  placing  ceilings 
on  day  care  rates  or  contributions  that  are 
chargeable  to  parents.  I  think  this  is  having 
the  effect  of  depriving  lower  income  families 
in  many  instances  and  keeping  them  on  wait- 
ing lists. 

I  have  discussed  this  on  numerous  occa- 
sions with  the  officials  from  Ottawa-Carleton 
and  I  can  assure  the  honourable  member  that 
in  private  conversations  they  agree  that  is 
one  of  the  effects,  regardless  of  the  protests 
that  I  have  to  deal  with  in  this  House. 

The  only  additional  thing  I  can  suggest  is 
that,  as  members  know  from  the  budgetary 
statements  of  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller) 
last  week,  I  will  very  shortly  be  announcing 
some  expansion  in  the  balance  of  this  fiscal 
year  in  terms  of  subsidized  day  care  spaces 
which  will  be  allocated  across  the  province. 
I  hope  it  will  be  part  of  a  larger  package  of 
announcements  that  I  will  be  making  in  the 
very  near  future.  Ottawa-Carleton,  along  with 
other  municipalities  in  this  province,  will 
benefit  from  that  and  I  would  hope  the  par- 
ticular individual  to  whom  the  member  re- 
ferred might  benefit  at  that  time,  if  not 
before. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Could  the  minister  let  the  people  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton  know  how  far  he  expects  that  $1 
million  additional  spending  on  day  care  to 
go  when  there  are  1,000  people  on  the  wait- 
ing list  looking  for  day  care  for  their  kids 
in  the  Ottawa-Carleton  region,  and  the  most 
generous  estimate  for  the  $1  million  proposed 
by  the  Treasurer  is  that  it  will  provide  500 
additional  spaces  for  day  care  to  cover  the 
entire  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber either  did  not  listen  to  the  Treasurer  or 
did  not  read  the  Treasurer's  statement,  be- 
cause the  $1  million  figure  to  which  he  is  re- 
ferring—and I  think  his  critic  understands; 
at  least  I  thought  I  communicated  that  across 
the  House  to  him  on  the  evening  of  the 
Treasurer's  statement— relates  to  the  last  three 
months  of  this  fiscal  year  and  is  not  the  an- 
nualized figure.  As  a  consequence,  when  one 
translates  that  into  spaces— although  I  will 
be  making  that  part  of  my  announcement,  I 
am  not  going  to  indicate  the  specific  number 
of  spaces  or  their  allocation  at  this  point- 
it  will  be  very  substantially  more  than  the 


number   of   spaces   the   honourable   member 
referred  to. 

ST.  MICHAEL'S 
COLLEGE  LAND 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Premier  regarding  the  matter  of 
the  St.  Michael's  College  land  in  the  city  of 
Toronto.  The  Premier  will  be  aware  that  it  is 
the  desire  of  the  city  of  Toronto  and  has 
been  voted  unanimously  by  city  council,  if 
I  am  not  mistaken,  to  use  the  St.  Michael's 
lands  for  park  land  purposes.  The  Premier 
will  be  aware  that  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Board  has  recently  overturned  this  unani- 
mous decision  on  the  part  of  the  city  of 
Toronto. 

Given  the  fact  that  the  OMB  appears  to 
have,  in  the  first  place,  imputed  false  motives 
to  the  city  of  Toronto  and  in  the  second  place 
has  not  addressed  all  the  evidence  presented 
at  the  hearing,  will  the  Premier  assure  this 
House  it  is  the  intention  of  cabinet  to  over- 
turn the  decision  of  the  OMB  and  restore  the 
decision  of  the  city  of  Toronto? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  on  sober  re- 
flection, might  rephrase  the  question.  I  know 
he  understands  how  the  OMB  works  and 
that  this  is  really  a  quasi-judicial  matter  where 
an  appeal  has  been  filed  with  the  cabinet. 
The  material  has  not  yet  been  assessed  by 
the  legislative  committee  of  cabinet,  at  least 
not  to  my  knowledge,  and  certainly  it  has 
not  been  considered  by  the  full  cabinet. 

Really,  what  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
is  asking  is  that  I  commit  the  government 
to  a  decision  based  on  a  recommendation  or 
judgement  from  a  quasi-judicial  group  with- 
out even  hearing  or  reading  the  material 
that  has  been  presented  by  either  the  persons 
appealing,  or  by  the  church,  or  those  in 
support  of  the  development  on  that  particu- 
lar site.  I  am  sure  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion, really,  if  he  thought  this  through  care- 
fully, would  not  presume  to  ask  the  head 
of  government  to  make  a  decision  here  pub- 
licly prior  to  the  process  being  followed. 

2:40  p.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  apologize  for  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Premier  had  already  read  the 
salient  matters,  since  it  was  published  in 
the  newspaper. 

It  was  stated  in  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Board  decision  that  it  was  the  opinion  of 
the  hearing  officer  the  city  was  trying  to 
down-zone  the  lands,  and  the  city  should 
have    expropriated    the    lands    if    it    wanted 


4380 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


them.  However,  it  did  not  have  the  right 
to  expropriate  the  land  since  it  belonged 
to  St.  Michael's  College  in  this  instance. 
Furthermore,  the  hearing  officer  said  the 
city  should  have  bought  the  lands  but  Cadil- 
lac Fairview  had  the  option  to  buy. 

Will  the  Premier  not  agree  that,  on  the 
face  of  it,  at  the  very  least  there  is  a  plain 
misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  the  hearing 
officer  who,  in  addition,  decided  not  to  hear 
and  consider  all  the  evidence?  Therefore, 
once  he  has  had  time  to  reflect  on  it,  to 
read  the  material  and  familiarize  himself 
with  it,  will  the  Premier  not  agree  that 
there  are  good  grounds  for  overturning  that 
decision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Once  again,  I  realize  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  gains  most  of  his 
relevant  information  from  the  newspapers, 
and  I  am  not  being  critical  of  that.  I  can 
always  predict  with  some  accuracy  what  the 
questions  will  be  from  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  based  on  his  hasty  reading. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  The  Premier  gets  all  his 
information  from  polls. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  for  Rainy 
River  is  not  around  enough  to  know  how 
many  polls  his  own  party  does  on  govern- 
ment trunk  lines.  Where  does  it  get  its  in- 
formation? He  was  away  for  that  debate. 

I  repeat  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
that  unlike  him  I  do  not,  nor  does  cabinet, 
make  judgements  based  on  newspaper  re- 
ports. I  am  not  being  critical  of  the  reports, 
but  the  documentation  involved  is  somewhat 
more  extensive  than  what  he  has  read  in 
the  paper.  I  am  not  going  to  argue  for  a 
moment  whether  the  city  of  Toronto  had 
the  right  to  expropriate  the  lands  from  St. 
Michael's  College.  However,  I  know  enough 
about  the  history,  having  been  Minister  of 
Education  when  St.  Michael's  College  was 
involved  in  another  matter  with  Metro,  to 
know  that  the  municipality  certainly  has  the 
right  to  purchase  from  St.  Michael's  College 
if  it  wishes  to  do  so. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Cadillac  Fairview,  I  believe, 
had  the  option. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  not  get  into  a  de- 
bate on  the  facts,  but  I  think  the  honourable 
member  should  have  some  concern  as  to 
the  economic  welfare  of  St.  Michael's  Col- 
lege. He  may  not,  but  as  a  part  of  cabinet's 
considerations  we  cannot  neglect  that  side 
of  the  discussion  either.  I  know  he  does  not, 
except  when  he  is  meeting  with  the  bishops, 
but  he  does  have  a  concern  on  other  issues. 
I  know  what  he  discusses  with  them. 


DISPOSAL  OF   PCBs 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  of  the  Premier.  Does  he  recall  the 
assurances  we  had  from  his  Minister  of  the 
Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  about  a  year  ago 
that  the  government  was  opposed  to  the  dis- 
posal of  hazardous  wastes  at  sea  by  burning 
them  on  ships?  In  the  light  of  that  state- 
ment of  a  year  ago,  has  the  Premier  made 
himself  aware  of  the  fact  that  Willinger 
Systems,  which  until  a  year  ago  was  a  part 
of  the  Walker  Brothers  Quarries  group  in 
Thorold,  is  proposing  to  bring  together 
polychlorinated  biphenyls  at  a  site  in  south- 
ern Ontario  and  ship  them  to  Czechoslovakia 
for  ultimate  disposal?  Has  the  government 
changed  its  policy,  or  will  it  undertake  not 
to  foist  Ontario's  PCBs  either  on  the  un- 
suspecting oceans  or  on  the  unsuspecting 
Czechs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  con- 
fess to  the  honourable  member  I  am  not 
familiar  with  this  discussion.  I  will  be  de- 
lighted to  have  the  minister  reply  to  him 
on  Thursday.  I  would  be  very  surprised  if 
any  country  were  as  unsuspecting  as  the 
honourable  member  suggests. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Will  the  Premier  undertake  to 
have  this  House  fully  informed  about  the 
hazards  entailed  in  assembling  PCBs  from 
the  entire  province  and  then  snipping  PCBs, 
with  all  the  hazards  they  carry  with  them, 
along  the  St.  Lawrence  Seaway  for  a  distance 
of  a  couple  of  thousand  miles  before  they 
ultimately  cross  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  go 
to  another  country? 

Will  the  Premier  undertake  that  in  future 
Ontario  will  not  try  to  export  our  hazardous 
waste  problems  to  other  countries,  just  as  we 
should  not  seek  to  import  hazardous  waste 
problems  from  other  countries  into  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  be  delighted  to  have 
the  minister  reply  to  as  much  of  that  as  possi- 
ble. He  has  always  fully  informed  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House.  I  think  he  has  some  doubts 
on  some  days  as  to  how  much  of  that  in- 
formation has  been  properly  assimilated  by 
some  members  of  the  House.  But  certainly 
he  will  inform  members. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Will  the  Premier  advise  the  House— if  he 
does  not  know,  he  can  ask  the  Minister  of 
Energy  (Mr.  Welch)— whether  the  govern- 
ment is  still  making  plutonium  shipments  to 
France  from  Douglas  Point? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
know  if  that  is  really  a  supplementary.  I  do 
not  have  the  answer  to  that,  but  I  will  con- 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4381 


suit  the  Minister  of  Energy.  I  am  not  sure 
it  is  a  supplementary. 

I  was  going  to  say  something  about  hazard- 
ous wastes  and  their  exports,  but  I  would  not 
do  that  to  the  member  for  Grey-Bruce.  If  he 
would  like  me  to  redirect  his  question  to 
the  Minister  of  Energy,  I  am  sure  if  he  has 
the  information  he  will  be  delighted1  to  share 
it  with  the  member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Why  don't  you  ask  him  right 
now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No.  I  want  him  to  have 
the  opportunity,  if  he  has  the  information,  to 
reply  to  the  member  directly. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  redirect 
the  question,  then. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That's  not  your  option.  If  the 
Premier  wishes  to  do  so,  he  can  do  so. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
When  the  Premier  is  discussing  this  with  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment,  in  view  of  the 
close  connection  between  Willinger  Systems 
and  Walker  Brothers,  will  he  remind  the 
minister  of  the  deplorable  track  record  of 
Walker  Brothers  in  the  violation  of  their 
certificate  and  suggest  to  him  that  they  should 
not  be  given  a  permit  to  carry  out  this  pro- 
posal with  PCBs? 

Will  the  Premier  also  remind  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  that  the  Walker  Brothers 
site  is  located  only  1.5  kilometres  from  the 
urban  district  of  Thorold  and  that  in  no  way 
should  there  be  any  PCB  storage  area  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  knowing  the 
hobby  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment, 
there  are  very  few  members  who  are  better 
able  to  determine  track  records  on  anything— 

Mr.  Swart:  He  may  determine  it  but  he 
ignores  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  minister's  track  record 
is  an  awful  lot  better  than  that  of  the  mem- 
ber's over  the  years.  I  make  that  brief  obser- 
vation. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Name  one  area. 

DATA  PROCESSING 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another 
question  for  the  Premier.  Since  we  will  both 
be  in  the  Ottawa  area  in  the  near  future  with 
respect  to  certain  political  events,  my  ques- 
tion to  the  Premier  concerns  markets  in 
Ontario  for  the  microelectronics  industry, 
which  is  becoming  increasingly  important, 
particularly  because  of  its  growth  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton. 

Can  the  Premier  say  what  the  government 
is  doing  to  stop  the  transfer  of  data  process- 


ing by  Ontario  corporations  to  the  United 
States,  such  as  the  recent  announcement  by 
Graham  Cable  TV  in  Toronto  that  it  is  shift- 
ing its  computerized  data  processing  for 
74,000  subscribers  to  a  California  company? 
Can  the  Premier  say  how  we  can  have  jobs 
for  microelectronics  firms  in  Ontario  if  the 
data  processing  continues  to  be  shifted  to  the 
United  States? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  data 
processing  is  not  being  shipped  to  the  United 
States. 

I  can  assure  the  honourable  member  I  ex- 
pect to  be  in  the  Ottawa  area,  as  he  does 
and  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  does.  I  am 
not  even  in  Carleton  tonight;  I  expect  to  be 
at  a  nominating  convention  where  we  have 
a  great  candidate,  sought  after  I  am  sure  by 
others,  who  will  upset  that  delightful  young 
lady  who  is  not  here  this  afternoon,  when- 
ever the  next  general  election  is.  That  is  the 
political  event  I  am  going  to. 

2:50  p.m. 

I  also  make  it  very  clear  that  over  the 
objections  of  both  opposition  parties,  the 
New  Democratic  Party  and  the  Liberal  Party, 
we  are  the  ones  who  are  supporting  the  elec- 
tronics industry  in  the  Ottawa  Valley.  We  are 
doing  it  over  the  objections  of  the  members 
opposite,  who  are  opposed  to  Marconi,  the 
multinationals  and  all  the  nonsense  raised 
during  the  course  of  the  by-election. 

It  is  really  intriguing  to  me  that  the 
leader  of  the  third  party  comes  here  to  ask 
me  what  we  are  doing  to  protect  the  market 
at  the  same  time  that  the  NDP  and  the 
Liberal  Party  of  this  province  are  making 
it  difficult  for  the  electronics  industry  to 
expand  in  the  Ottawa  Valley. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  remind  the  Premier  that 
Mitel,  a  Canadian  company  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton,  has  been  trying  for  two  and  a  half 
years  to  get  its  systems  attached  to  Bell 
Canada  here  in  Ontario,  and  there  has  not 
been  a  peep  from  the  government  to  defend 
the  right  of  that  Canadian  company  to 
market  here  in  Ontario. 

Is  the  Premier  not  concerned  that  we  are 
already  importing  more  than  $500  million 
worth  of  data  processing  services  from  the 
United  States,  which  is  already  costing  us 
10,000  jobs,  and  the  federal  Department  of 
Communications  estimates  that  by  1985  we 
are  going  to  be  importing  so  much  data 
processing  from  the  United  States  that  we 
will  have  lost  23,000  jobs  that  we  could 
have  had  here  in  Canada?  What  steps  does 
the    government  intend   to   take  to  stop  this 


4382 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


outflow  of  data  processing,  which  should 
take  place  in  Ontario  or  Canada  and  which 
would  create  jobs  for  tens  of  thousands  of 
Canadians? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  great  respect,  I 
think  the  honourable  member  grossly  exag- 
gerates the  situation.  There  is  some  data 
processing  work  being  done  south  of  the 
border;  there  is  a  certain  amount  being  done 
here.  This  government,  through  the  assist- 
ance to  the  electronics  industry,  has  made  it 
possible  for  us  to  be  in  the  forefront  of 
many  of  these  new  developments,  in  spite 
of  the  objections  from  the  members  opposite, 
and   that  will   continue  to  be  the   policy. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary: 
Considering  the  Premier's  recent  conversion 
and  his  interest  in  the  high-technology  in- 
dustry in  the  Ottawa  area,  when  is  he  going 
to  wake  up  his  government  and  Minister 
of  Education  (Miss  Stephenson)  to  provide 
adequate  funds  so  we  can  get  the  specialized 
workers  necessary  to  supply  that  industry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
made  it  abundantly  clear  that,  when  the 
post-secondary  institutions  and  the  industry 
itself  determine  for  the  government  what 
kind  of  personnel  they  require,  we  can 
educate  them.  In  fact,  we  are  in  the 
process  of  doing  it.  We  are  holding  discus- 
sions with  some  of  the  employers— and  the 
member  should  spend  a  little  time  with 
them;  instead  of  calling  thsm  the  crummiest 
in  the  world,  he  should  talk  to  some  of 
these  people  who  are  involved  in  the  process. 

I  just  say  to  the  honourable  member, 
when  he  is  talking  about  high  technology, 
we  are  making  some  real  progress  in  the 
electronics  field  in  the  Ottawa  Valley—but 
the  Ottawa  Valley  also  extends  to  Kingston. 
If  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  and  the 
critic  over  there  would  be  a  little  more 
understanding  and  supportive  of  the  Urban 
Transportation  Development  Corporation- 
understanding  that  there  is  high  technology 
developed  in  Ontario  which  is  going  to 
operate  in  Hamilton,  and  has  bids  in  with 
Detroit,  Los  Angeles  and  Miami— then  I 
would  believe  the  member  when  he  makes 
some  of  his  observations  about  high  tech- 
nology. He  does  not  like  it  because  this 
government  has  done  it;  that's  why. 

OTTAWA  HEALTH  CLINIC 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  considering  that 
of  recent  date  the  Premier  is  interested  in 
Ottawa  problems  and  considering  that  he  is 
spending  some  time  there,  will  he  look  into 


the  question  of  the  establishment  of  the  24- 
hour  health  clinic  in  the  old  Ottawa  General 
Hospital  which,  as  the  Premier  knows,  has 
been  replaced  by  the  new  Ottawa  General 
Hospital?  How  does  the  Premier  expect  that 
clinic  to  be  able  to  justify  its  existence  if  his 
Ministry  of  Health  does  not  allow  the  clinic 
to  advertise  on  radio,  television  or  in  news- 
papers that  they  are  in  existence  and  offer- 
ing an  essential  service?  Does  the  Premier 
want  the  clinic  to  work  or  does  he  want  it  to 
fail? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  of  course 
that  is  not  right.  I  say  to  the  honourable  mem- 
ber that  my  interest  in  Ottawa  has  been  for 
years  far  greater  than  his.  When  I  visit 
Ottawa,  when  I  am  in  that  community,  I  do 
not  spend  all  my  spare  time  in  the  courts, 
as  he  does  when  he  is  in  his  constituency. 
That  is  all  he  does  up  there. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  it  comes  to 
believing  people,  I  will  believe  Sister 
Paquette  before  I  will  believe  the  Premier, 
I  will  tell  him  that.  Why  does  he  not  want 
Joe  Clark  in  that  riding? 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  Premier  whether  he 
is  prepared  to  prevail  upon  the  Minister  of 
Health  (Mr.  Timbrell)  to  extend  the  date  for 
assessment  of  this  clinic  past  November  27; 
and  can  he  tell  me  what  kind  of  government 
he  is  leading  when  it  will  not  allow  a  clinic 
to  advertise  an  essential  service  at  the  same 
time  he  is  spending  millions  telling  the  pub- 
lic of  Ontario  how  great  he  is? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  do  not  happen  to  be  in 
the  medical  profession,  but  I  know  of  a 
number  of  clinics  and  my  recollection  is  that 
clinics  do  not  advertise.  I  also  say  to  the 
honourable  member,  who  was  not  at  the 
opening,  I  do  not  know  of  many  communi- 
ties that  have  received  more  assistance  and 
support  in  terms  of  health  services  than  the 
great  Ottawa-Carleton  region. 

Mr.  Roy:  Fifteen  years  behind  everybody 
else. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  are  way  ahead.  I 
understand  the  Liberal  candidate  has  been 
taking  some  exception  to  where  the  chronic 
care  facility  is  going  to  be,  but  memory- 
serves  me  very  correctly  that  he  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  health  council  when  that  decision 
was  made. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Since  the  Premier  appears  to  have  for- 
gotten that  Ottawa-Carleton  consistently  has 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4383 


been  at  the  tail  of  the  line-up  in  getting 
capital  assistance  for  health  facilities,  a 
process  that  has  gone  on  for  the  past  15 
years,  will  the  Premier  explain  why,  even 
when  there  is  a  by-election  on,  the  govern- 
ment is  not  prepared  to  come  up  with  a  plan 
to  wipe  out  the  $500,000  deficit  currently 
being  experienced  by  the  Queensway-Carle- 
ton  Hospital  in  the  heart  of  the  riding  of 
Carleton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  delighted  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  is  at  long  last  taking  a 
modest  interest  in  his  own  general  area. 
Does  he  ever  get  back  there  except  during 
by-elections? 

I  say  to  the  honourable  member,  we  are 
solving  these  problems,  not  only  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton  but  also  right  across  the  province. 
Ottawa  has  not  been  at  the  bottom  end  of 
the  list.  In  terms  of  capital  allocation,  it  has 
done  remarkably  well.  I  just  wish  the  member 
had  been  with  me  at  the  opening  of  the  new 
hospital  the  other  day.  Why  did  he  not  come 
there  and  see  what  the  government  and  the 
people  of  that  community  provided— one  of 
the  first-rate  hospitals  in  North  America, 
right  there  in  the  Ottawa-Carleton  region. 
Why  was  he  not  there? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  are  other  places 
in  the  province  than  Ottawa-Carleton. 

SALES  TAX  ON  CARPETS 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  quiet, 
nonpartisan,  non-Ottawa  question  for  the 
Minister  of  Revenue.  Can  the  minister 
explain  to  the  House  why  carpets  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  list  of  household  items 
eligible  for  the  sales  tax  rebate  when  we 
have  two  major  carpet  producers  closing 
down  their  plants  in  Cornwall  and  Lindsay 
this  month  and  when  the  stated  purpose  of 
the  mini-budget  was  to  create  jobs  and 
stimulate  the  economy  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all, 
the  decision  as  to  what  would  and  what 
would  not  be  exempted  was  taken  by  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  and  not  by  the 
Minister  of  Revenue. 

I  understand  floor  coverings  of  any  type, 
including  floor  tile  and  even  hardwood  floor 
coverings,  were  not  included.  There  was  a 
limit  to  the  amount  of  dollars  the  province 
could  afford  in  this  program  and  that  was 
where  the  line  was  drawn. 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if  I 
might  redirect  that  question  to  the  Premier, 


since  the  minister  admits  he  was  not  part  of 
the  decision-making  process. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  these 
matters  of  course  are  determined  solely  by 
the  Treasurer;  there  is  a  great  history  and 
great  tradition  in  this  process.  I  am  sure 
there  are  honourable  members  opposite  who 
could  add  any  one  of  a  dozen  items  to  the 
list  of  exemptions.  The  decision  was  made 
not  to  include  floor  coverings  in  the  exemp- 
tions, based  on  the  amount  of  money  the 
Treasurer  felt  would  be  available  in  terms  of 
stimulation.  As  I  say  to  the  honourable 
member,  I  can  think  of  another  half  dozen  a 
lot  of  us  would  like  to  see  included,  but  one 
has  to  draw  a  line  somewhere  and  that  is 
where  the  line  was  drawn. 

3  p.m. 

BATA  STRIKE 

Mr.  O^Neil:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Can  the 
minister  bring  this  Legislature  up  to  date  on 
the  status  of  the  serious  strike  at  the  Bata 
shoe  company's  locations  at  both  Batawa  and 
Trenton,  and  can  he  report  on  events  that 
took  place  over  the  weekend  where  several 
people  were  injured,  some  with  concussions 
and  one  with  broken  bones,  and  tell  us  what 
action  is  being  taken  to  settle  this  strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  mediators 
from  the  Ministry  of  Labour  met  with  the 
parties  in  mediation  on  October  22  and  again 
on  November  7.  They  have  been  in  constant 
contact  with  the  parties  and,  as  soon  as  there 
is  any  indication  given  to  them  that  there  is 
a  reason  to  gather  the  parties  together  again, 
they  will  do  it. 

As  to  events  that  took  place  over  the 
weekend,  I  have  no  information  about  them. 
The  honourable  member  may  wish  to  refer 
that  question  to  the  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
McMurtry)  when  he  arrives. 

WORKMEN'S   COMPENSATION 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Now 
that  the  Weiler  report  has  been  tabled  in 
the  Legislature,  can  the  minister  state  when 
he  expects  business  and  labour  to  respond 
and,  therefore  when  we  can  expect  retro- 
activity of  legislation  for  current  pensioners? 
When  will  the  increases  in  rates  occur  so 
that  inflation  is  compensated  for  to  all  in- 
jured workers   across   Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be 
tabling   that  report  shortly  today.    Members 


4384 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


have  copies  of  it  already.  I  have  drafted  a 
letter  to  be  sent  to  all  those  who  contributed 
briefs  or  who  contributed  in  any  other  way 
to  the  process,  as  well  as  to  a  variety  of 
representatives  from  business  and  from  la- 
bour. I  have  requested  responses  to  the 
briefs  by  the  end  of  December  so  that  I 
can  get  on  with  preparing  recommendations 
for  my  colleagues. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Can  the  minister  give  us 
a  clear  commitment  today  that  the  new 
legislation  he  is  planning  to  introduce  in 
the  near  future  will  cover  past  injured  work- 
ers who  are  currently  receiving  a  partial 
permanent  pension  and  those  who  are  re- 
ceiving  temporary   total   disability  benefits? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  can  tell  the  member 
that  as  soon  as  responses  are  in  to  the  re- 
port and  as  soon  as  I  present  recommenda- 
tions to  my  colleagues— I  have  already  asked 
Professor  Weiler  whether  he  will  review  in- 
terim and  transitional  arrangements  with  re- 
gard to  pensioners  who  are  on  existing  pen- 
sions—on the  basis  of  that  information,  the 
government  will   proceed. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of  Labour 
whether  it  is  true  that  Mr.  Weiler  contacted 
all  the  interested  parties  in  the  province  be- 
fore he  made  his  report,  part  of  which  has 
been  tabled  here  in  the  House  with  the 
accompanying  sheet?  Why  does  the  minister 
feel  he  has  to  contact  these  people  all  over 
again  just  to  repeat  the  process? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  mem- 
ber was  listening  to  me,  I  said  all  those  who 
were  interested  and  submitted  reports  or 
who  appeared  before  Mr.  Weiler  will  be 
receiving  a  letter  from  me,  along  with  a 
request  for  their  remarks.  In  addition,  docu- 
ments and  the  request  for  comments  will  go 
out  to  various  business  people,  various  trade 
union  movements  and  others  for  their  re- 
sponse. In  other  words,  there  should  be  a 
public  response,  and  I  want  that  response 
by  the  end  of  December. 

USE  OF  AMERICAN  DICTIONARIES 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Education.  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  approximately  1,000  stu- 
dents who  are  taking  correspondence  pro- 
grams in  this  province  are  being  issued 
American  dictionaries  and  that  this  is  creat- 
ing a  problem  with  Ontario  teachers,  who 
are  marking  their  assignments  and  expecting 
them    to    use    Canadian    spelling?    Does    the 


minister  approve  of  it  and,  if  not,  what  does 
she  intend  to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 
As  a  semanticist  whose  Bible  is  the  Oxford 
dictionary,  I  do  not  approve  of  American 
dictionaries,  nor  do  I  approve  of  the  Ameri- 
can spelling  of  a  number  of  Anglo-Saxon 
and  other  words.  I  shall  most  certainly  in- 
vestigate that. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Will  the  minister,  in  her 
investigation,  ask  her  officials  why,  when 
they  are  phoned  by  parents,  parents  are 
told  this  practice  began  in  1975,  they  plan 
to  continue  it  to  1983,  and  the  only  reason 
it  is  being  done  is  that  the  American  dic- 
tionary is  cheaper? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Yes.  That  is  inter- 
esting information. 

SCHOOL  FIRE 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Education.  Can 
the  minister  report  to  the  House  what 
measures  her  ministry  has  undertaken  to 
ensure  that  the  temporary  French-language 
high  school  in  Lafontaine  will  continue  to 
function  effectively  so  that  whatever  twisted 
bigot  or  sick  person  who  set  fire  to  the 
building  will  be  denied  the  satisfaction  of 
interrupting  the  students'  education? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
program  is  continuing  in  that  school  and 
will  continue  there  until  other  premises  are 
provided. 

Mr.  Samis:  Can  the  minister  give  the 
House  any  idea  when  those  students  will 
be  able  to  move  out  of  the  firetrap  in  La- 
fontaine and  into  a  decent  facility  in  Pene- 
tanguishene,  as  she  promised  last  spring, 
and  at  what  stage  will  she  personally  get 
involved  to  ensure  that  those  students  will 
be  in  a  new  facility  in  1981? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  First,  that  build- 
ing is  not  a  firetrap.  Second,  it  has  not  been 
condemned,  as  has  been  suggested  by  a 
number  of  members  in  the  House.  It  is  a 
building  that  has  not  been  used  by  the 
board  because  of  declining  enrolment.  How- 
ever, the  program  is  continuing  in  that 
facility  and  will  continue  until  the  problems 
related  to  the  provision  of  other  premises 
are  resolved,  in  which  I  have  already  been 
personally  involved. 

MASSEY-FERGUSON 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion   I   want   to    put   to   the   Premier  in   the 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4385 


continuing  absence  of  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman),  pertain- 
ing to  the  financial  situation  involving 
Massey-Ferguson  and  to  some  extent  the 
White   Motor  Corporation  in   Brantford. 

Is  the  Premier  aware  that  the  Canada 
Development  Corporation  has  announced 
that  it  will  not  be  taking  part  in  the  refi- 
nancing of  Massey-Ferguson?  Since  that  an- 
nouncement has  been  made,  does  he  know 
what  plans  the  government  of  Ontario,  in 
conjunction  with  the  government  of  Canada, 
has  to  see  that  the  refinancing  goes  forward, 
that  the  company  remains  afloat  and  that  the 
jobs  remain  viable? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  famil- 
iar with  some  of  the  discussions,  but  I  say 
to  the  member  that  we  are  keeping  in  con- 
stant touch  with  the  government  of  Canada. 
As  soon  as  we  have  anything  of  a  specific 
nature  that  is  proper  to  disclose  to  members 
of  the  House,  we  will  certainly  do  so,  but 
I  am  not  in  a  position  to  make  any  further 
comments  today. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Will  the  Premier  arrange  for 
either  himself  or  the  minister  to  make  a 
statement  on  this  matter  on  Thursday  and, 
if  possible,  to  make  a  statement  having  to 
do  with  the  situation  involving  White  Motor 
Corporation  as  well,  since  the  proposal  to 
buy  out  the  parent  corporation  in  the  United 
States  seems  to  be  hung  up  on  the  Foreign 
Investment  Review  Agency?  Really,  the 
people  involved  in  this  way  in  the  city  of 
Brantford  should  have  more  information 
than  they  are  getting. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  quite  prepared  to 
give  any  information  I  will  be  free  to  give 
on  Thursday.  I  do  not  want  to  give  an  under- 
taking, because  I  would  hate  to  have  the 
member  move  the  adjournment  of  the  House 
if  I  do  not  have  a  statement. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Is  the  Premier  aware  that  the  intended 
purchase  is  dependent  on  the  workers  taking 
a  $3-  to  $4-per-hour  cut  in  wages?  If  so,  will 
the  Premier  do  everything  possible  to  ensure 
thai  that  purchase  does  not  go  through,  using 
FIRA  if  necessary? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
really  is  unwise  to  debate  this  or  to  discuss  it 
here  in  the  House  based  on  either  rumour  or 
non-fact. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  It  is  fact. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  suggesting,  with  re- 
spect, that  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  say  any- 
thing further  to  the  House  at  this  moment 
than   I   have   already   said.    If  I   have   some 


further  information  to  share  on  Thursday,  I 
am  more  than  prepared  to  do  so. 

USE  OF  ASBESTOS  IN  SCHOOLS 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Why  has  the 
minister  not  ensured  that  the  health  and 
safety  branch  issue  automatically— it  has  not 
covered  the  whole  province  already— to  school 
boards  and  employee  groups,  when  they 
start  to  search  for  the  possible  asbestos  prob- 
lems in  schools,  all  the  procedures,  methods 
of  testing  and  proper  safety  procedures  which 
testing  people  should  use  when  they  are  do- 
ing those  inspection  processes,  which  were 
patently  not  available  to  either  the  school 
board  or  the  employee  groups  in  Windsor 
this  past  summer  when  they  went  about  their 
testing  procedures? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  mem- 
ber knows,  the  Ministry  of  Labour  did  pre- 
pare for  distribution  by  the  Ministry  of  Edu- 
cation a  detailed  documentation  about  identi- 
fication of  asbestos.  I  will  have  to  look  into 
the  other  aspect  of  it,  but  I  do  know  that  in 
the  Windsor  situation  that  particular  school 
board  did,  as  he  knows,  retain  a  physician  to 
advise  them  about  the  procedures. 

3:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  As  one  who  is  intimately 
involved  with  health  and  safety  inspection, 
would  the  minister  be  satisfied  if  six  or  seven 
school  boiler  rooms  were  inspected  and  found 
to  contain  some  asbestos  and  the  inspector 
then  said,  "If  these  are  the  types  of  boiler 
rooms  found  in  all  the  rest  of  the  schools,  I 
do  not  need'  to  see  any  more"?  Would  the 
minister  not  expect  that  any  inspector  or  con- 
sultant would  inspect  all  the  locations  in  all 
the  schools  in  the  area  concerned? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  The  member  well  knows 
that  in  the  Windsor  situation  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  did  have  an  inspector  visit  the  school 
involved.  Recommendations  were  made  and 
follow-ups  will  be  carried  out  to  see  whether 
those  recommendations  have  been  adopted. 

TOMATO  PROCESSING 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  assures  me  he  has  a  brief  answer  to 
a  question  asked  yesterday. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Yesterday,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, the  leader  of  the  third  party  asked  me  a 
question.  I  am  sorry  he  is  not  in  the  House, 
but  I  will  give  members  the  answer. 

In  Ontario,  the  production  of  tomatoes  from 
our    greenhouses   was   24   million   pounds   in 


4386 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  spring  crop.  The  fall  crop  was  only  two 
million  pounds.  The  fall  crop  is  available  only 
from  early  October  until  mid-November,  an 
insufficient  supply  to  fill  the  needs  of  the 
supermarket  chains.  They  are  sold  mostly 
through  the  small  stores. 

California  produced  an  excellent  crop  of 
large,  very  high-quality  tomatoes  this  fall.  It 
was  a  bumper  crop  and  they  moved  into  the 
Ontario  market  at  a  very  cheap  price— from 
25  to  40  cents  a  pound  in  Toronto— around 
the  beginning  of  November. 

Our  greenhouse  tomato  season  normally 
ends  in  mid-November.  In  view  of  the  high 
quality,  low  price  and  heavy  supplies  of  to- 
matoes from  the  United1  States,  the  green- 
house board  advised  Ontario  growers  to  re- 
move the  tail  end  of  their  crop  a  week  to  10 
days  early  to  save  costs  and  fuel.  Some 
growers  did;  others  are  trying  to  continue  to 
harvest  and  sell. 

Ontario  quality  normally  starts  to  drop  at 
this  time  of  the  year.  The  price  dropped  in  the 
past  two  weeks  from  50  cents  a  pound  to  less 
than  30  cents.  The  large  retailers  tend  not 
to  purchase  fall-crop  greenhouse  tomatoes  be- 
cause of  the  very  short  availability  period  of 
six  weeks.  The  inconsistency  or  lack  of  supply 
and  the  higher  price  are  due  to  energy  costs. 

In  the  past,  some  growers  sold  directly  to 
one  large  chain,  Dominion.  Once  the  chain 
converted  completely  to  central  warehousing, 
this  was  no  longer  possible.  The  chain  now 
tends  to  purchase  US  tomatoes  because  of 
the  price. 

Loblaws  seldom  buys  Ontario  greenhouse 
tomatoes,  especially  if  US  imports  are  lower 
in  price. 

At  present,  the  reason  for  not  purchasing 
is  the  low  quality  of  the  Ontario  greenhouse 
tomatoes.  The  quality  has  dropped  because 
it  is  the  end  of  the  season  and  the  heat  has 
been  cut  back. 

The  House  should  be  aware  that  the  normal 
acre  of  greenhouse  produces  about  $75,000 
worth  of  products  a  year.  If  they  continue 
producing  through  this  period,  it  costs  them 
about  half  that  for  energy  alone.  That  is  the 
reason  our  greenhouse  operators  cannot  com- 
pete. 

The  only  way  this  will  be  corrected  is  by  a 
form  of  embargo. 

I  have  a  short  letter  here,  Mr.  Speaker, 
from  one  of  the  chain  stores. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  can  table  it  or  make  it 
a  ministerial  statement.  I  wish  you  would 
emulate  the  precedent  established  by  the 
government  House  leader  (Mr.  Wells),  who 


gave  a  detailed  answer  by  way  of  a  minis- 
terial statement. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  can  the  minister 
explain  two  things  that  were  not  covered  in 
his  statement? 

In  the  first  place,  why  is  it  that  throughout 
the  Ontario  greenhouse  tomato  season  this 
fall,  Loblaws  in  Toronto  has  not  once  had 
those  green  house  tomatoes  available  even 
when  the  quality,  according  to  him,  was  bet- 
ter than  it  is  at  the  end  of  the  season? 

Second,  if  the  imported  tomatoes  are 
cheaper  to  the  supermarkets,  can  the  minister 
explain  why  none  of  the  benefit  is  being  felt 
by  the  consumers?  The  imports  are  being 
priced  at  the  same  price  as  the  Ontario  prod- 
uct, yielding  windfall  profits  to  the  super- 
markets and  no  benefits  to  the  consumers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  I  did  answer  the 
honourable  member's  question.  If  he  had 
listened  to  my  statement,  there  was  a  clear 
answer- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  apologized  for 
Loblaws.  That  is  what  he  did. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  There  are  no  apolo- 
gies in  this  statement  whatsoever.  Loblaws 
seldom  buy  Ontario  greenhouse  tomatoes, 
especially  if  US  imports  are  lower-priced.  I 
have  answered  the  question. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  again 
I  say  to  you  and  to  the  honourable  member 
that  the  greenhouse  tomatoes  in  Ontario 
were  withdrawn  at  the  request  of  the  pro- 
ducers' organization. 

NURSING  HOMES 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  regarding  nursing  homes  and 
their  inspection. 

Is  the  provincial  secretary  aware  that  in 
Ontario,  specifically  in  the  city  of  St.  Catha- 
rines, two  private  homes  have  denied  access 
to  a  five-member  public  institutions  inspec- 
tion panel,  which  replaces  the  old  grand  jury 
for  the  purpose  of  inspecting  these  facilities 
for  which  the  citizens  of  this  province  and 
the  Ministry  of  Health  pay  some  of  the  shot, 
in  the  form  of  Ontario  health  insurance  plan 
premiums,  for  those  who  are  in  there?  Is 
the  minister  aware  that  these  people  have 
been  denied  access  for  inspection  purposes 
and,  if  so,  what  action  is  she  prepared  to 
take  to  ensure  these  facilities  will  be  open  to 
inspection? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  aware  of  that.  I  think  the  question  should 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4387 


be  more  properly  addressed  to  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry). 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  direct  a 
supplementary  question  then  to  the  Provin- 
cial Secretary  for  Justice,  since  it  appears  to 
be  in  that  particular  field?  Will  the  Provin- 
cial Secretary  for  Justice  inform  the  House 
whether  it  is  his  view  that  these  nursing 
homes  and  rest  homes,  which  indirectly  are 
publicly  supported,  should  submit  themselves 
to  inspection  by  a  publicly  appointed  and 
provincially   sanctioned   inspection   panel? 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  certainly 
have  no  objection  to  seeing  the  public  insti- 
tutions inspection  panel  do  an  appropriate 
review  and  check  of  various  institutions,  in- 
cluding the  rest  homes.  I  have  no  doubt 
whatsoever  it  is  an  appropriate  step  to  ensure 
this  happens. 

I  will  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of 
the  aopropriate  minister  and  I  am  sure  he 
will  develop  a  policy  on  it,  if  there  is  not 
one  already. 

INVESTMENT    COMPANIES'    FAILURE 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.  Is  the  minister  pre- 
pared to  table  all  the  files  being  held  in  his 
ministry  and  its  component  agencies,  boards 
and  commissions  which  deal  with  Re-Mor 
Investment  Management  Corporation,  Astra 
Trust  Company  and  Mr.  Carlo  Montemurro 
so  that  members  of  the  assembly  finally  can 
be  privy  to  some  information  that  might 
explain  his  negligence  in  registering  Re-Mor 
and  permitting  it  to  rip  off  so  many  people 
in   the   province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  asked 
substantially  the  same  question  last  Thurs- 
day by  the  member  for  Kitchener  (Mr. 
Breithaupt).  I  had  wanted  that  member  to 
be  here  when  I  responded,  but,  since  some- 
body else  is  trying  to  get  on  his  coat-tails, 
I  will   give  that  answer  now. 

On  Thursday  last,  the  member  for  Kit- 
chener asked  me  to  inform  the  House  if 
at  the  time  of  the  Re-Mor  application  the 
registrar  of  mortgage  brokers  was  aware  of 
the  judge's  comments  and  the  evidence  ten- 
dered by  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission 
in  the  receivership  application  against  C 
and  M.  In  a  supplementary  question,  he 
asked  me  to  table  certain  documents. 

I  sought  advice  on  these  matters  from 
the  crown  law  office.  I  have  been  advised 
by  the  crown  law  office  that  the  matters 
raised  in  that  question  and  the  supplementary 


question  are  directly  in  issue  on  the  ongoing 
civil  litigation.  Anything  I  say  in  response 
to  the  questions  or  table  in  the  House  could 
prejudice  a  fair  trial  of  the  issue. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  honourable  minister 
saying  anything  of  that  nature  is  sub  judice? 

3:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  question 
that  was  asked  by  the  member  for  Kitchener, 
while  not  as  broad  in  scope  as  the  one  asked 
today,    dealt   particularly   with   the   file. 

I  repeat,  I  sought  advice  from  the  crown 
law  office  and  was  advised  that  the  matters 
raised  in  that  question  and  the  supplemen- 
tary question,  and  obviously  because  of  its 
scope  in  the  ensuing  question  by  someone 
else,  are  directly  at  issue  in  the  ongoing  civil 
litigation.  Anything  I  say  in  response  to 
the  questions  or  table  in  the  House,  and 
that  includes  the  file,  could  prejudice  a  fair 
trial  of  the  issues.  That  is  the  advice  I  re- 
ceived from  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  Will  the  Speaker  take  under  advise- 
ment the  statement  made  by  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  and 
decide,  for  the  purposes  of  the  rules  of  this 
House,  whether  the  matter  is  or  is  not  sub 
judice? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No,  I  cannot  undertake  to 
do  that,  because  I  do  not  know  what  is 
before  the  courts.  Of  my  own  knowledge, 
I  do  not  know  what  information  may  preju- 
dice the  case.  I  will  have  to  leave  that  to 
the  discretion  of  the  minister  or  the  person 
answering  the  question. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  point  of 
order:  It  would  seem  you  are  simply  accept- 
ing the  minister's  explanation  that  he  con- 
siders the  matter  sub  judice  as  sufficient  rea- 
son not  to  answer  the  question.  It  would  be 
sufficient  then  for  the  minister  simply  to  say 
he  refuses  to  answer  the  question  on  the 
basis  of  his  own  misgivings. 

I  bring  to  your  attention,  sir,  that  it  may 
well  be  this  matter  will  be  directed  to  one  of 
the  committees  for  review.  Frankly,  I  be- 
lieve it  should  be  and  will  be.  The  fact  that 
the  minister  is  refusing  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion surely  does  not  mean  the  whole  matter 
can  no  longer  be  discussed  by  this  House  or 
its  committees.  I  would  hope,  sir,  your  ruling 
would  not  in  any  way  indicate  the  matter 
should  not  be  discussed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  did  not  make  a  ruling. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  point 
of  order:  I  want  to  make  it  very  clear  that 


4388 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  minister  did  not  refuse.  He  gave  the 
member  the  information  and  advice  he  had 
received  from  the  law  officer  of  the  crown. 
That  is  what  he  said  on  that  basis. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can- 
not understand  any  reason  why  the  minister 
is  hiding  this  information  from  the  House, 
but  I  have  a  supplementary  question.  If  the 
minister  will  not  provide  the  House  with  this 
information  on  which  we  could  make  some 
judgements  and  have  some  understanding, 
will  he  tell  us  whether  he  is  aware  of  any 
activity  or  action  of  any  sort  undertaken  by 
Mr.  Carlo  Montemurro  that  would  lead  the 
minister  and  his  staff  to  believe  Mr.  Monte- 
murro could  have  been  expected  to  have  been 
financially  responsible  or  to  carry  on  his  busi- 
ness with  integrity  and  honesty  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  required  by  the  legislation  of 
the  Mortgage  Brokers  Act?  Can  he  provide  us 
with  a  single  example  of  such  an  action  or 
activity  by  Mr.  Montemurro  that  would  ex- 
cuse his  negligence  in  this  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
make  it  very  plain  that  I  am  not  hiding  any- 
thing. I  would  be  delighted  to  table  that  file, 
because  that  would  hit  it  right  out  of  the  ball 
park.  I  have  been  advised  by  the  crown  law 
office  that  I  cannot  table  that  file  or  answer 
those  questions  without  prejudicing  a  fair 
trial  on  the  issue.  That  was  not  my  judge- 
ment. I  sought  the  advice  of  the  Ministry  of 
the  Attorney  General.  That  was  the  advice  I 
received.  I  have  conveyed  that  to  the  House. 

As  far  as  the  question  of  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  is  concerned,  I  have  an- 
swered that  question  before. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Give  us  one  example. 

Mr.   S.   Smith:   By  way  of  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  No.  A  new  question. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  minister  is  saving  the  reason 
he  has  not  been  able  to  comply  with  the 
promise  he  made  to  table  certain  informa- 
tion is  the  advice  he  was  given  by  the  law 
officers  of  the  crown.  What  I  think  is  out  of 
order  is  that  we  in  the  opposition  are  left  in 
this  situation  with  no  way  of  taking  anything 
other  than  the  minister's  word.  For  instance, 
all  that  has  been  filed  is  a  notice  of  claim. 
There  is  no  civil  litigation;  there  is  only  a 
notice  of  claim  that  has  been  filed.  Therefore, 
at  the  very  least  we  ought  to  know  what  the 
basis  is  for  the  alleged  opinion  the  minister 
has  allegedly  received  from  the  law  officers 
of  the  crown  which  prevents  him  from  tabling 
the  information  he  promised  us. 


Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  sought  the 
advice  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General,  of  the  crown  law  office.  This  is  the 
advice  I  was  given.  I  am  conveying  it  to  the 
House. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Table  the  basis  of  the  report. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  It  is  right  here.  This  was 
the  advice.  If  the  honourable  member  wants 
another  report  from  the  crown  law  office,  I 
will  be  delighted  to  table  that. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  There  is  no  civil  litigation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  That  is  nonsense.  There 
is  a  statement  of  claim  and  everything  else. 

ACID  RAIN 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Premier.  In  view  of  the  un- 
believable tragedy  facing  this  province, 
based  on  a  report  that  some  2,000  to  4,000 
lakes  in  Ontario  will  disappear  because  of 
acid  rain,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
someone  has  to  take  the  responsibility  to 
call  a  crash  conference  of  all  adjacent  state 
governors,  along  with  US  President-elect, 
Mr.  Reagan,  I  think  it  is  on  the  Premier's 
shoulders  to  start  carrying  the  ball  immedi- 
ately and  to  contact  the  President-elect  and 
all  adjacent  state  governors  to  call  a  con- 
ference. We  are  the  main  province  affected. 

I  want  to  ask  the  Premier  why  he  cannot 
forget  all  this  nonsense  about  amending 
formulae  and  constitutional  reform  and  do 
something  that  is  relatively  important  to  us 
here  in  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
honourable  member  has  at  least  approached 
part  of  the  real  difficulty  here  that  perhaps 
was  not  highlighted  in  the  discussions  at 
the  press  conference  yesterday;  that  is,  a 
good  part  of  the  difficulty  exists  with  our 
neighbours  to  the  south. 

The  honourable  member  is  quite  right  in 
saying  that  the  states  bordering  the  Great 
Lakes  have  a  responsibility,  but  I  must  say 
to  him  that  I  believe  the  overriding  respon- 
sibility belongs  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States. 

In  assessing  some  of  the  information  from 
the  news  stories,  I  was  intrigued  by  the 
suggestion  that  some  of  the  American  elec- 
trical plants  were  operating  at  better  levels 
than  those  of  Ontario  Hydro.  The  facts  do 
not  support  that.  In  fact,  only  about  three 
per  cent  of  the  energy  facilities  or  utilities 
that  would  impact  upon  southern  Ontario 
have  that  kind  of  technology  available  to 
them. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4389 


I  think  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
has  been  talking  to  Mr.  Roberts  about  this. 
I  myself  have  raised  the  matter  with  the 
Prime  Minister  of  this  country,  and  I  hope 
that  one  of  the  very  early  priorities  for  Mr. 
Roberts  and  the  Prime  Minister  of  Canada 
when  Mr.  Reagan  assumes  office  will  be  to 
establish  immediately  some  form  of  contact, 
some  form  of  policy  development  whereby 
our  American  neighbours  will  move  with  the 
same  alacrity  and  will  join  in  solving  a 
problem  that  really  does  cross  the  border 
between  our  country  and  theirs. 

To  get  the  President-elect  committed  at 
this  stage  is  somewhat  premature.  But  cer- 
tainly, in  terms  of  getting  the  new  adminis- 
tration's involvement  and  commitment  to 
this,  that  is  something  this  government  will 
be  pursuing. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  say  respectfully  that  I  do 
not  think  it  is  up  to  the  Premier  to  pigeon- 
hole this  to  a  minister.  I  think  it  is  important 
that  the  first  minister  of  this  province  go  to 
bat,  put  the  thing  on  track,  put  the  Presi- 
dent-elect on  the  spot  and  get  the  thing 
in  motion  now,  rather  than  letting  someone 
else  pigeon-hole  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  remind  the  honourable 
member,  if  he  will  go  back  in  history  a 
little  bit  to  a  matter  that  was  the  same 
sort  of  issue  as  acid  rain,  that  he  will  find 
it  was  the  Premier  of  this  province  who  lit 
a  bit  of  a  fire  under  the  then  and  present 
Prime  Minister,  who  in  turn  had  some 
modest  success  with  the  President  of  the 
United  States  three  times  removed. 

If  the  member  will  recall,  the  Premier  of 
this  province  was  quite  directly  involved  with 
respect  to  the  water  quality  agreement  that 
was  executed  between  the  United  States  and 
Canada.  If  memory  serves  me  correctly— and 
the  honourable  member  may  check  this— in 
terms  of  Ontario's  performance  and  Canada's 
performance,  we  met  it  here  in  this  province. 

If  the  member  finds  out  in  his  research 
that  the  Nixon  administration  in  the  latter 
stages  of  its  activities  started,  because  of 
restraint  or  whatever,  to  diminish  its  com- 
mitment in  terms  of  water  quality,  that  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  commitment  of  this 
province.  So  we  were,  in  fact,  successful  in 
doing  it  on  that  occasion. 

3:30  p.m. 

PETITIONS 

HALTON  FINANCIAL  DEFICIT 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  peti- 
tion to  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 


ernor and  the  Legislative  Assembly  of 
Ontario  as  follows: 

"We,  the  undersigned,  request  that  a  com- 
mission of  inquiry  be  recommended  into  the 
administrative  and  fiscal  affairs  of  the 
regional  municipality  of  Halton  pursuant  to 
section  121  of  the  Regional  Municipalities  of 
Halton  Act." 

I  have  a  further  petition  to  the  Honour- 
able the  Lieutenant  Governor  and  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly  of  Ontario  as  follows: 

"We,  the  undersigned,  respectfully  petition 
the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  to 
issue  a  commission  of  inquiry  into  the  fiscal 
management  and  administrative  practices  of 
the  regional  municipality  of  Halton  arising 
out  of  the  deficit  of  $1.2  million  over  a  period 
of  two  years,  1978-80,  pursuant  to  section 
323(2)  of  the  Municipal  Act  of  Ontario." 

ANNUAL  REPORT, 

MINISTRY  OF  CONSUMER  AND 

COMMERCIAL  RELATIONS 

Mr.  Bradley:  Pursuant  to  standing  order 
33(b),  the  undersigned  members  of  the 
Legislature  hereby  petition  that  the  annual 
report  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  for  the  year  ending  March 
31,  1980,  tabled  in  the  Legislature  on  Oc- 
tober 6,  1980,  be  referred  to  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice  for 
immediate    and   urgent    consideration. 

REPORT 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
SOCIAL  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Gaunt  from  the  standing  committee 
on  social  development  presented  the  follow- 
ing report  and  moved  its  adoption: 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bill  without  amendment: 

Bill  167,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Chiropody 
Act. 

Report  adopted. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

MOTION 

PRIVATE  MEMBERS'  PUBLIC 
BUSINESS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved,  notwithstanding 
standing  order  63(d),  that  Mr.  Warner  and 
Mr.  Cooke  exchange  positions  in  the  order 
of  precedence. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


4390 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

MUNICIPAL  BOUNDARY 
NEGOTIATIONS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  197,  An  Act  to  facilitate  the  Negotiation 
and  Resolution  of  Municipal  Boundary  and 
Boundary-related  Issues. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

CITY  OF  TORONTO  ACT 

Mr.  Renwick  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
Pr44,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of  Toronto. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

GRADORE  MINES  LIMITED  ACT 

Mr.  Ramsay  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
Pr49,  An  Act  to  revive  Gradore  Mines 
Limited. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  198, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  provide  a  procedure  for  the 
Residential  Tenancy  Commission  to  review 
rent  increases  allowed  by  the  commission  for 
the  purpose  of  financing  major  repairs  by  the 
landlord.  If  the  commission  determines  that  a 
landlord  has  not  carried  out  the  repairs,  or 
that  the  cost  of  repairs  is  less  than  the  cost 
forecast  by  the  landlord,  the  commission  may 
order  a  reduction  in  the  rent  increase. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the  answers  to  the  following  questions 
standing  on  the  Notice  Paper:  384,  392  and 
395.  (See  appendix,  page  4411.) 

WRITTEN  QUESTIONS 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  point 
of  order  relating  to  question  No.  381  which 
was  tabled  on  October  28,  1980.  Standing 
order  81(d)  requires  the  minister  to  answer 
within  14  days.  Twenty-one  days  have  now 
passed  without  my  receiving  an  answer  to 
that  question.  Surely  there  should  be  some 
mechanism  to  impose  a  penalty  upon  minis- 


ters who  do  not  reply  to  written  questions 
as  required  by  standing  order. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  no  provisions  for 
any  penalties,  not  even  flogging  with  a  wet 
noodle.  The  minister  can  answer  in  any  way 
he  chooses.  It  is  probably  an  oversight.  I  am 
sure  the  government  House  leader  will  bring 
it  to  the  attention  of  the  minister  in  question. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

EDUCATION  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  82,  An  Act  to  amend 
the  Education  Act. 

On  section  1: 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wanted  to 
point  out  to  my  colleagues  just  how  impor- 
tant this  section  is  for  everything  else  we  will 
be  doing  during  the  course  of  the  afternoon 
and  for  however  long  the  debate  on  Bill  82 
takes.  I  refer  to  section  1(1),  the  definition  of 
"exceptional  pupil."  Much  of  the  rest  of  what 
we  do  this  afternoon  will  hinge  on  what  we 
are  doing  in  this  subsection. 

In  this  definition  section  we  are  conferring 
the  statutory  power  of  decision  upon  the 
placement  committee  of  the  local  board  of 
education.  We  are  saying  to  the  local  board 
of  education,  "We,  the  Legislative  Assembly 
of  Ontario,  are  delegating  the  power  upon 
you  to  decide  the  fate  of  the  students  within 
your  school  board.  We  are  giving  you  the 
power  to  decide  who  of  the  pupils  in  your 
school  system  are  exceptional  pupils  and  who 
are  not.  We  are  giving  you  the  power  to 
determine  which  students  within  the  school 
system  will  receive  special  education  program 
services  and  which  students  will  not." 

3:40  p.m. 

The  power  under  this  subsection  is  such 
that  the  local  placement  committee  of  a 
board  of  education  will  decide  who  is  an 
exceptional  pupil.  In  order  to  qualify  for 
special  education  programs  and  special  edu- 
cation services,  a  child  has  to  be  so  classi- 
fied as  an  exceptional  pupil.  If  a  child  is  not 
designated  an  exceptional  pupil,  that  child 
is  not  eligible  for  special  education  programs 
or  services.  So  we  are  giving  a  twofold  power 
to  the  local  placement  committee,  first,  the 
power  to  decide  who  is  an  exceptional  pupil, 
that  is,  who  is  eligible  for  the  benefits  and 
programs;  and  second,  the  power  to  decide 
what  kind  of  benefits  and  programs  the  chil- 
dren will  receive,  where  a  particular  student 
will  go  and  what  particular  program  and  ser- 
vices he  or  she  will  receive. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4391 


I  wanted  to  stress  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  to 
you,  to  the  minister  and  to  my  colleagues  in 
the  Liberal  Party  because  at  this  time  we  are 
dealing  with  an  amended  bill  which  provides 
a  means  of  appeal  against  the  decision-making 
power  of  the  local  placement  committee  of  a 
local  board  of  education.  None  of  the  amend- 
ments that  have  been  introduced  either  by 
the  Minister  of  Education  or  by  the  Liberal 
Party  speaks  to  the  need  to  have  an  appeal 
system  with  respect  to  those  two  statutory 
powers  of  decision:  the  power  of  the  local 
board  to  decide  who  is  and1  who  is  not  an 
exceptional  pupil,  and,  following  upon  that 
decision,  what  kind  of  special  education  pro- 
grams and  services  the  child  will  receive. 

If  we  are  to  be  faithful  to  the  principles  of 
the  McRuer  report,  written  in  the  1960s,  we, 
as  a  Legislature,  will  enshrine  in  this  statute 
a  means  of  appeal  against  that  particular 
statutory  power  of  decision.  We  will  get  to 
that  in  the  fullness  of  time  and  we  will  de- 
bate what  the  appeal  process  ought  to  look 
like  when  we  get  to  section  7.  But  it  is 
section  1(1),  clause  20a,  which  vests  this 
enormous  power  to  determine  life  and  death 
decisions  in  terms  of  access  to  educational 
services. 

At  this  time,  we  have  put  an  appeal  pro- 
cedure into  the  bill  and  others  are  trying  to 
take  it  out.  I  want  to  argue  over  the  course 
of  this  debate  as  strenuously  as  I  possibly 
can  that  we  have  an  obligation,  if  we  are 
going  to  confer  those  kinds  of  powers  on 
somebody  else  to  make  such  fundamentally 
important  decisions  about  the  lives  of  the 
children  of  this  province,  to  provide  an  appeal 
against  those  decisions. 

There  should  be  a  chance  for  a  second  look 
at  what  a  local  board  of  education  and  what 
a  local  placement  committee  has  in  its  wis- 
dom decided.  Unless  we  put  that  right  of 
appeal  in,  first,  with  respect  to  the  designa- 
tion of  exceptional  pupils  and,  second,  with 
respect  to  the  adequacy  of  a  special  educa- 
tion service  and  program,  we  are  betraying 
the  needs  and  aspirations  of  many  thousands 
of  people  in  this  province. 

I  believe  that  very  deeply.  There  have 
been  many  hundreds  of  people  who  have 
communicated  that  feeling  to  us  as  members 
of  the  assembly  over  the  course  of  the  last 
month.  I  would  start  this  debate  by  making 
an  appeal  to  the  other  two  parties  to  come 
to  grips  with  the  challenge  posed  to  us 
through  the  delegation  of  these  important 
statutory  powers  to  the  local  placement 
committees. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  speak  very  briefly  to  what  has  just 


been  said.  I  would  draw  the  committee's 
attention  to  one  sentence  in  the  opening 
statement  of  the  minister  on  May  23  of  this 
year.  She  said:  "But  until  today  it  cannot 
be  said  that  the  law  clearly  and  unequiv- 
ocally obliged  the  publicly  supported  system 
to  provide  appropriate  forms  of  education 
for  all  students  who  could  potentially  bene- 
fit. Today's  bill  closes  the  small  gap,"  and 
it  goes  on. 

I  want  to  start  from  that  point  by  making 
the  observations  I  agree  with  what  has  been 
said  in  that.  The  law  until  today  did  not, 
and  the  law  at  the  present  time  does  not, 
guarantee  every  student  in  this  province  the 
land  of  education  he  or  she  needs. 

The  second  point  I  would  make  is  that 
since  May  of  last  year  we  have  come  a  long 
way.  The  minister  will  recall  that  one  of  the 
first  and  most  critical  comments  made  to  her 
by  a  number  of  members,  particularly  on 
this  side  of  the  House,  was  the  need  for  an 
appeal  mechanism  because  the  original 
version  of  the  bill,  as  presented  to  us,  did 
not  have  what  we  deemed  to  be  an  adequate 
appeal  mechanism. 

There  have  been  a  number  of  amend- 
ments presented  which  gradually  and  slowly 
have  closed  the  gap  between  what  was 
offered  and  what  is  deemed  to  be  needed.  It 
will  be  my  intention  today  to  try  to  close 
that  gap  a  little  further.  I  would  accept  the 
premise  the  minister  has  come  a  long  way, 
but  the  way  that  still  needs  to  be  gone 
though  small,  is  critically  important.  It  is 
on  that  point  I  want  to  indicate  to  the  min- 
ister as  clearly  as  I  can  that  I  will  be 
making  amendments   to  her  amendments. 

fWe  have  come  a  long  way  with  respect  to 
the  principle  of  exclusion.  In  the  original 
legislation  it  was  made  clear  that  in  our 
judgement  there  was  no  place  in  this  kind 
of  statute,  in  this  kind  of  legislative  pro- 
vision, for  an  exclusion  principle.  We  have 
once  again  gradually,  slowly  but  effectively, 
closed  the  door.  We  have  just  a  narrow 
little  crack  there  that  still  has  to  be  closed 
with  respect  to  whether  potentially  in  prac- 
tice, although  not  in  word,  there  may  be  an 
exclusion  principle  still  in  this  bill.  We  are 
going  to  speak  to  that  in  terms  of  the  defi- 
nition of  a  special  education  program  and 
when  we  come  to  some  other  definition 
sections  in  this  bill. 

I  would  also  draw  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister  and  my  colleagues  something  which 
is  well-known  to  many  of  them,  that  there 
is  a  strong  difference  of  opinion  outside  this 
House  as  to  how  we  should  deal  with  legis- 


4392 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


lation  like  this.  Many  of  the  school  boards 
and  some  of  the  teachers'  federations  of  the 
province  are  concerned  that  the  bill,  as 
at  present  written,  is  too  rigid  and  could 
lead  to  complicating  problems  which  would 
mean  the  services  that  children  should  have 
will  not  be  received  by  them.  That  is  one 
side. 

The  other  side  is  contacts  from  many 
parents  of  children  who  have  already  experi- 
enced some  rather  negative  effects  of  the 
special  education  services  that  are  offered  in 
this  province  at  the  present  time.  They  want, 
and  it  is  understandable  they  would  want,  a 
bill  that  is  as  tight,  as  restricted  and  as  rigid 
as  possible  so  there  will  be  no  loopholes.  Our 
job  surely  is  to  try  to  balance  these  two.  That 
will  be  part  of  the  attempt  I  will  speak  to 
as  we  deal  with  the  various  sections  of  the 
bill. 

Finally,  I  would  draw  particularly  to  the 
minister's  attention  that,  if  we  had  in  place 
in  Ontario  now  sufficient  facilities  to  meet 
the  greatly  varying  needs  of  many  of  our 
children  who  have  special  needs,  we  would 
not  be  dealing  with  many  of  the  problems 
in  this  legislation.  All  we  would  have  to  do 
then  is  decide  who  was  going  to  pay  for  it 
and  which  one  of  those  facilities  the  chil- 
dren were  going  to  go  to.  That  would  be  the 
only  decision  open  to  us.  It  would  be  the 
only  decision  over  which  we  would  have  to 
spend  much  time.  The  unfortunate  fact  is  that 
the  need  for  this  legislation  is  that  for  the 
past  decade  and  beyond  we  have  not  had  a 
sufficient  number  of  qualified  teachers  to  meet 
the  greatly  varied  needs  of  the  special  edu- 
cation pupils  in  this  province.  We  have  to 
begin  to  move  on  that.  It  is  certainly  the 
purpose  of  this  legislation  and  it  is  a  goal  I 
endorse. 
3:50  p.m. 

The  best  information  I  have  is  that  there 
are  between  80,000  and  100,000  students  in 
this  province  who  still  need  special  education. 
They  still  need  the  kind  of  attention  they 
have  not  been  getting  for  the  past  number 
of  years  and  probably  will  not  get  if  we  do 
not  do  an  adequate  job  with  this  legislation. 
It  is  those  children,  who  have  been  identi- 
fied by  their  parents  and  in  many  cases  by 
the  school  boards  that  are  now  responsible 
for  them,  whose  needs  we  have  to  meet.  We 
also  have  to  recognize  the  kind  of  experi- 
ences that  parents  and  children  in  this  prov- 
ince have  undergone.  I  recognize  we  cannot 
be  omnipotent  here,  but  we  must  produce  a 
piece  of  legislation  that  is  most  likely  to  meet 
the  needs  of  every  single  child  in  this  prov- 
ince who  has  a  special  need. 


I  would  certainly  hope  that  in  the  process 
of  doing  that  we  can  put  aside  some  of  our 
own  personal  ambitions  in  dealing  with  this— 
let  me  put  it  that  way— and  I  am  speaking 
for  myself  as  well  as  anyone  else  in  this 
Legislature.  I  hope  we  will  keep  in  mind 
the  only  ones  we  are  here  to  serve  are  the 
children  who  have  special  needs  and  the 
parents  of  those  children  who  are  trying  des- 
perately to  do  the  best  they  can  to  meet  the 
needs  of  their  children  across  this  province. 

In  that  light  I  am  willing  to  work  with  the 
minister  and  with  my  colleagues  in  the  New 
Democratic  Party  to  produce  the  best  piece  of 
legislation  we  can. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 
bill  has  had  a  long  and  interesting  history. 
I  believe  it  was  approximately  seven  years 
ago  that  work  was  begun  on  trie  drafting  of 
what  might  be  considered  legislation  in  order 
to  ensure  that  all  the  exceptional  children  in 
this  province  would  receive  the  benefit  of 
an  educational  program  designed  to  help  them 
meet  their  full  potential. 

In  January  1979,  we  had  completed  the 
draft  of  proposed  legislation  that  was  widely 
distributed  throughout  the  province  to  all 
the  parent  interest  groups,  the  special  educa- 
tion interest  groups  and  the  educational  com- 
munity interest  groups  in  order  to  achieve 
their  reactions.  We  received  those  reactions 
in  comprehensive  form,  in  brief  form  and  in 
verbal  form.  All  of  those  reactions  were  col- 
lated and  brought  together  and  the  draft  pro- 
posals were  modified  in  order  to  accommodate 
the  concerns  that  were  expressed.  We  car- 
ried on  with  the  help  of  an  advisory  council 
on  special  education  that  has  been  in  exist- 
ence now  for  at  least  three  years  and  that  has 
diligently  addressed  itself  to  the  problem 
of  legislation  in  this  area  and  with  the  assist- 
ance of  a  multipartite  committee  made  up 
of  representatives  of  the  school  system  itself— 
trustees,  education  administration  officers  and 
teachers.  We  went  through  the  procedure  of 
making  the  modifications  to  the  draft  legis- 
lation that  culminated  in  Bill  82. 

In  all  of  this,  the  motivating  force  was  the 
concern  to  provide  an  educational  program 
for  children.  We  have  had  no  other  goal  in 
mind.  That  goal  remains  dominant  today. 
However,  in  this  province  the  structure  of 
education  is  such  that  one  must  rely  upon  the 
goodwill,  the  co-operation  and  the  thoughtful 
input  of  not  just  parents  and  those  who  are 
concerned  about  the  children.  I  refer  also  to 
those  who  were  given  the  responsibility  under 
legislation  for  designing  programs,  for  looking 
after  children's  educational  needs,  for  deliver- 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4393 


ing  educational1  programs  and  for  providing 
the  facilities  in  which  that  occurs. 

No  bill  can  hope  to  be  successful  in  this 
very  sensitive  area  unless  that  kind  of  co- 
operation, that  kind  of  concern  and  that  kind 
of  support  are  forthcoming  from  the  educa- 
tional community.  Therefore,  I  welcome  the 
remarks  of  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Kitchener- Wilmot  (Mr.  Sweeney)  that  a  bal- 
ance must  be  struck.  And  that  balance  must 
be  struck  in  favour  of  the  children.  We  must 
ensure  that  the  program  is  made  available  to 
the  children;  that  those  children  with  needs 
who  are  designated  exceptional  receive  that 
program;  that  there  are  methods  of  monitor- 
ing and  methods  of  ensuring  that  program  is 
being  delivered;  and  that  those  children  are 
being  assessed. 

In  the  hearings  of  the  committee,  the  opin- 
ions which  were  expressed  provided  an  excel- 
lent range  of  background  information  for  all 
members  of  the  committee  to  examine  the 
bill  and  to  make  modifications  to  it.  During 
those  hearings  and  clause-by-clause  examina- 
tion, several  modifications,  which  are  entirely 
acceptable,  were  made.  There  were,  however, 
two  that  were  made  that  produced  a  reaction 
within  a  very  wide-ranging  group  within  our 
society  which  I  think  we  cannot  afford  to 
overlook. 

There  were  amendments  related  to  section 
1  which  I  believe  now  are  probably  appropri- 
ate. I  am  perfectly  willing  at  this  point  to 
withdraw  the  amendments  which  I  was  pro- 
posing to  that  amendment  and  I  would  leave 
section  1(1)  as  it  is  in  the  bill. 

In  certain  other  areas  of  the  bill,  concerns 
have  been  expressed  by  people  who  have  a 
great  deal  of  knowledge,  a  great  deal  of  ex- 
perience and  a  good  deal  of  concern  about 
the  provision  of  programs  for  exceptional 
children.  One  of  these  was  an  unsolicited 
letter  received  from  Dr.  Frederick  Weintraub 
who  was  the  prime  mover  of  Bill  94-142  in 
the  United  States,  a  bill  which  has  had  some 
effect  upon  the  thinking  of  not  only  those 
who  are  proponents  of  the  amendments  which 
the  opposition  party  supported,  but  also  those 
who  are  opposed  to  those  amendments. 

I  should  like  this  House  to  know  what  Dr. 
Weintraub  has  suggested  in  specific  areas  re- 
lated to  those  amendments.  Dr.  Weintraub 
expressed  some  very  real  concern  about  an 
excessive  concentration  upon  the  development 
of  what  is  called  in  the  United  States  an  indi- 
vidual educational  plan  which  must  be  filed 
in  that  country  and  must  be  perused  on  a 
regular  basis.  His  concern  is  based  upon  the 
fact  that  he  believes  IEPs,  as  he  calls  them, 


have  become  instructional  tools,  with  teachers 
spending  an  inordinate  amount  of  time  doing 
clerical  and  paperwork,  rather  than  devoting 
their  time  to  the  role  they  fill  best,  which  is 
teaching.  He  has  suggested  very  strongly  that 
we  not  move  in  that  direction. 

In  addition  to  that,  he  has  suggested  that 
we  are  wrong,  or  at  least  erroneous  or  per- 
haps misguided,  in  attempting  to  introduce 
into  a  piece  of  legislation  the  statement  that 
we  would  be  designing  a  plan  that  "meets  the 
needs,"  of  exceptional  pupils  because  he  feels 
very  strongly  that  the  appropriate  phrase 
should  be  "designed  to  meet  the  needs." 
From  his  experience,  he  suggests  that  the 
needs  of  exceptional  pupils  are  extremely 
difficult  to  define  in  the  light  of  our  current, 
somewhat  circumscribed  knowledge;  that  as 
we  advance  in  our  knowledge  we  shall  be 
able  to  do  that  better,  but  at  the  present  time 
we  are  suggesting,  through  that  kind  of  word- 
ing, that  we  shall  be  able  to  do  something  he 
does  not  believe  we  can  do. 

This  is  a  man  who  has  had  a  tremendous 
amount  of  experience  in  this  area.  He  was 
the  prime  mover  of  the  legislation  in  the 
United  States  and  actually  shepherded  it 
through  the  legislative  process  there.  He  feels 
very  strongly  that  the  failure  to  meet  the 
needs  may  be  in  a  number  of  areas  which 
have  nothing  to  do  with  education.  He  sug- 
gests very  strongly  that  the  educators  should 
deal  with  education  rather  than  with  other 
matters. 
4  p.m. 

He  is  concerned  about  our  use  of  the  word 
"appropriate."  While  I  share  that  concern,  I 
also  understand  the  concern  of  parents  in  this 
area  and  feel  it  is  probably  better  to  leave 
that  kind  of  definition  in  the  legislation  than 
to  remove  it  because  it  gives  us  a  goal  to- 
wards which  we  can  work  with  the  co-opera- 
tion and  the  support,  I  hope,  of  all  of  those 
who  will  be  responsible  for  delivering  pro- 
gramming. 

Dr.  Weintraub  was  particularly  concerned 
about  the  establishment  of  what  was  called 
in  the  amendment  Ontario's  special  educa- 
tion board.  He  recognized,  appreciated  and 
agreed  with  the  need  for  parents  to  be  able 
to  appeal  the  decisions  of  placement  com- 
mittees and  suggested  this  should  be  done,  as 
we  have  attempted  to  do.  He  felt  very 
strongly,  however,  that  one  could  not,  on  the 
one  hand,  hold  education  officials  account- 
able and  responsible  for  the  education  of 
exceptional  children  and,  at  the  same  time, 
remove  from  those  individuals  the  total  re- 
sponsibility for  decision-making  in  that  area. 


4394 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


He  felt  we  should1  modify  very  dramatically 
the  structure  and  function  of  that  board  as  it 
was  defined  in  the  amendments.  We  have 
attempted  to  do  that. 

He  also  suggested  it  was  not  reasonable  at 
all  to  anticipate  that  a  board  such  as  that 
would  be  able  to  devote  the  time  that  would 
be  necessary  to  handle  the  appeals.  He  sug- 
gested it  would  be  important  to  recognize 
that  if  we  moved  in  that  direction  we  would 
probably  be  establishing  another  major  bu- 
reaucracy with  perhaps  the  experience  they 
have  had  in  the  United  States  that  this  con- 
sumes not  just  a  great  deal  of  time  and 
effort  but  much  of  the  cerebral  activity  of 
those  who  should  be  using  that  power  in 
other  directions  on  behalf  of  children. 

In  addition  to  that,  we  have  received  com- 
munications from  the  Council  for  Exceptional 
Children  in  this  province,  which  very  strongly 
disapproved  of  those  amendments  but  which, 
having  had  in  a  small  group  an  opportunity 
to  look  at  the  amendments  which  we  had 
proposed  related  to  section  34,  suggested  it 
could  support  the  amendments  which  we 
were  suggesting. 

We  have  had  tremendous  communication 
from  a  number  of  areas  within  and  outside  of 
the  educational  svstem,  expressing  support 
for  the  concent  of  Bill  82,  expressing  very 
real  concern  about  some  of  the  portions  with- 
in that  bill  and  asking  us  to  move  in  the 
direction  of  ensuring  that  the  bill  does  what 
we  had  suggested  earlier  in  all  of  this  pro- 
cedure, that  is,  meet  the  needs  of  children 
without  exposing  the  children,  the  system 
and  the  educational  program  unduly  to  a 
litigation  process  that  would  be  both  time- 
consuming  and  destructive.  We  have  tried  to 
take  into  account  all  of  the  expressions  of 
concern  which  we  have  heard  from  all  sides. 
We  have  provided  some  amendments  which  I 
think  are  reasonable  and  meet  the  require- 
ments. 

I  would  remind  the  members  that  in 
committee  the  member  for  Mississauga  South 
(Mr.  Kennedy),  who  was  representing  me 
on  a  day  I  could  not  be  present,  introduced 
an  amendment  which  ensures  that  the  min- 
ister has  responsibility  for  establishing  an 
appeal  mechanism  in  respect  of  placements 
of  exceptional  pupils  and  would  be  respon- 
sible for  procedures  with  respect  to  parents' 
and  guardians'  participation  in  that.  Those 
regulations  are  in  the  process  of  being  drafted 
at  this  point  to  ensure  there  will  at  the  time 
of  designation,  initial  placement  and  further 
placement  be  a  time,  a  place  and  the  appro- 
priate   kind    of    participation    on    behalf    of 


parents  or  guardians  in  support  of  the 
students  for  which  they  have  concern  and 
responsibility. 

No  one  recognizes  more  than  I,  as  a 
parent  who  has  had  personal  experience  in 
this  area,  that  the  responsibility  of  the 
province  and  government  of  Ontario  is  to 
try  to  ensure  that  all  exceptional  pupils  will 
be  well  served  in  this  province.  That  was  the 
purpose  of  the  legislation.  In  our  consulta- 
tions, when  we  discovered  there  were  limita- 
tions within  our  capabilities  at  this  point, 
we  accepted  the  requirement  that  this  need- 
ed to  be  a  phase-in  program.  The  first  and 
most  important  phase  of  that  program  is 
being  carried  out  right  now. 

It  was  begun  on  September  11.  1980, 
with  the  inauguration  of  pilot  projects  in 
the  21  participating  boards.  The  initiating 
teams  and  the  implementation  teams  func- 
tioned in  conjunction  with  those  boards  in 
making  an  acute,  critical  and  careful  assess- 
ment of  all  the  requirements  and  needs  of 
exceptional  pupils  in  those  jurisdictions,  an 
assessment  of  all  the  resources  available 
and  an  estimate,  as  accurate  as  possible,  of 
the  resources  necessary  to  provide  the  full 
range  of  special  education  programs  in 
support  of  these  children. 

Probably  by  the  end  of  the  third  year  of 
the  phase-in  program  this  jurisdiction  will 
have  more  accurate  information  about  the 
requirements  and  the  services  which  need  to 
be  provided  for  exceptional  children  than 
anv  other  jurisdiction  on  this  planet.  I 
believe  that  is  a  goal  for  which  we  should 
strive  diligently. 

We  know  at  this  point  our  knowledge  is 
circumscribed  and  that  we  are  not,  as  my 
friend  from  Kitchener-Wilmot  (Mr.  Sweeney) 
suggested,  either  omnipotent  or  omniscient. 
Thus  we  feel  we  must  at  this  time  introduce 
legislation  which  provides  us  with  oppor- 
tunity to  meet  the  requirements  as  carefully 
as  we  can  and  which  also  gives  us  the 
chance  to  modify  those  requirements  as  our 
knowledge  increases  and  as  we  become 
more  experienced  in  the  totality  of  ensuring 
educational  programs  for  all  exceptional 
children. 

I  believe  the  bill  we  introduced,  the 
amendments  which  we  have  accepted  and 
those  amendments  which  we  are  proposing 
today  will  allow  us  to  move  in  that  direc- 
tion responsibly  in  order  to  ensure  that  our 
children  are  well  served  in  the  province.  I 
would  ask  that  the  members  of  this  House 
consider  seriously  the  amendments  we  have 
provided  today  and  the  objective  we  are  at- 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4395 


tempting  to  meet  and  support  us  in  that 
activity  which  will  allow  this  legislation  to 
pass  as  we  propose  to  amend  it. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  want  to  be  sure  I 
understood  the  minister,  Mr.  Chairman.  The 
minister  will  not  foe  proceeding  with  her 
amendment  to  section  1(1).  Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman, 
given  the  concern  which  had  foeen  expressed 
about  the  amendment  we  had  proposed,  I 
suggested  we  will  agree  to  accept  the  amend- 
ment that  was  accepted  in  committee.  There- 
fore, we  will  not  propose  an  amendment 
to  section  1(1). 

Mr.  McClellan:  That's  certainly  fine  with 
us.  We  are  quite  comfortable,  as  in  so  much 
else,  with  the  language  of  the  bill  as  it 
reads  now. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  one  other 
question.  It  is  my  understanding  that  there 
may  be  some  additional  amendments  coming 
from  the  minister.  If  there  are,  perhaps  the 
minister  could  share  those  or,  if  not,  indicate 
to  us  that  we  have  the  complete  package  of 
ministerial  amendments  with  us  now. 

Mr.  Chairman:  This  might  be  the  appro- 
priate time  to  remind  the  members  of  the 
committee  of  standing  order  58:  "When  time 
permits,  amendments  proposed  to  be  moved 
to  bills  in  any  committee  shall  be  filed  with 
the  Clerk  of  the  House  at  least  two  hours 
before  the  bill  is  to  be  considered  and  copies 
of  such  proposed  amendments  shall  be  dis- 
tributed to  all  parties." 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  be- 
lieve our  amendments  were  filed  with  the 
Clerk  of  the  House  and  were  distributed.  Is 
that  not  so?  I'm  sorry,  that  commitment  was 
made  this  morning.  Do  the  members  not  have 
them? 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  believe  the  table  received 
amendments  from  two  members  of  the  com- 
mittee just  as  we  were  starting  the  bill,  but 
that  is  all  that  has  been  received.  The  min- 
ister's amendments  have  now  been  received 
here. 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  are  in  something  of  a 
difficult  situation.  We  can't  really  proceed 
until  we  have  the  complete  package  of 
amendments  from  the  Minister  of  Education. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
complete  package  of  amendments,  save  for 
one  paragraph,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  two 
critics  for  the  past  72  hours,  as  a  matter  of 
fact.  But  there  is  one  paragraph  of  adden- 
dum which  I  had  notified  at  least  the  critic  for 
the  NDP  about,  and  I  believe  the  member  for 


Kitchener-Wilmot    (Mr.    Sweeney)    also    has 
them. 

4:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  will  ask  the  question 
again.  Are  there  any  comments,  questions  or 
amendments  to  section  1  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  Warner:  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  Before  I 
begin,  while  the  critic  may  have  received  the 
amendments,  I  would  assume  that  properly 
they  should  be  tabled  with  the  clerk  before 
we  can  proceed  to  any  other  amendments. 

I  have  some  concerns  about  the  definition 
section.  I  am  certainly  pleased  to  learn  that 
the  minister  has  agreed  to  withdraw  a  previ- 
ously considered  amendment  which  she  had. 
It  indicates  a  good  spirit  with  which  to  be- 
gin the  deliberations  of  this  afternoon  and 
possibly  this  evening  in  an  attempt  to  come 
through  with  an  extremely  important  piece 
of  legislation. 

I  start  from  the  premise  that  our  educa- 
tional system  should  be  designed  in  such  a 
way  as  to  meet  the  individual  educational 
need  of  each  student;  that  is  a  goal.  As  the 
minister  knows,  for  far  too  long  that  goal  has 
not  been  realized.  In  fact,  over  the  past  too 
many  years,  there  has  not  been  the  kind  of 
dedicated  effort  from  this  government  which 
is  needed.  We  need  only  remind  ourselves, 
with  respect  to  children  with  learning  dis- 
abilities, a  number  of  years  ago  the  mentally 
retarded  children  and  the  parents  of  those 
children  had  a  terrible  time  when  attempting 
to  get  proper  education  for  their  children— 
the  kind  of  educational  program  that  would 
meet  the  needs  of  that  child.  We  have  a  long 
way  to  go. 

The  progressive  amendments  that  were 
spearheaded  by  the  member  for  Bellwoods 
(Mr.  McClellan)  go  a  long  way  to  assist. 
Where  the  minister  has  indicated  a  spirit  of 
co-operation  in  taking  a  second  or  third  look 
at  Bill  82  and  in  trying  to  come  up  with 
something  which  will  be  agreeable  to  all— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  would  be  more 
appropriate  to  say  a  102nd  or  a  103rd  look. 

Mr.  Warner:  Several  looks.  That  is  certainly 
welcome.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind,  as 
the  minister  is  certainly  aware,  that  there 
are  a  lot  of  parents  in  this  province  who  are 
a  bit  nervous  about  whether  or  not  they  will 
have  a  direct  voice  in  the  educational  future 
of  their  children. 

,Like  other  members,  I  have  had  phone 
calls  within  the  last  few  days  from  parents 
and  educators  who  are  anxious  to  know  what 
is  happening.  I  have  some  specific  concerns, 
one  of  which  touches  on  the  definition  itself. 


4396 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


In  our  area,  as  the  minister  may  be  aware, 
we  have  a  program  for  gifted  children.  The 
Scarborough  Board  of  Education  started  it 
a  while  ago,  and  that  program  is  running  very 
smoothly  and  nicely.  I  think  it  is  doing  a 
first-rate  job  in  meeting  the  needs  of  those 
children  who  are  classified  as  gifted. 

The  concern  raised  to  me— and  this  is  why 
I  raise  it  with  the  minister— is  whether  or  not 
the  definition,  particularly  as  indicated  on 
page  1,  under  62(a),  would  ensure  that  a  pro- 
gram for  gifted  children  is  included  in  the 
definition  and  could  not  in  any  way  be  ex- 
cluded. While  it  may  not  be  ultimately  of 
any  consequence  for  the  Scarborough  Board 
of  Education,  since  it  has  already  made  a 
commitment  to  run  such  a  program  and  to 
continue  such  a  program,  I  raise  it  because 
there  may  be  other  boards  that  do  not  have 
such  a  program.  I  want  to  be  assured  that  the 
parents  in  that  area  could  then  very  logically 
and  reasonably  approach  the  board  and  ask 
it  to  begin  such  a  program.  That  is  why  I  am 
wondering  whether  gifted  children  would  be 
included  in  that  definition. 

I  also  want  to  be  assured  that  children  with 
learning  disabilities  are  included  in  that 
definition  because,  as  the  minister  knows,  the 
fight  on  behalf  of  those  children  against  this 
government  has  gone  on  far  too  long.  Like 
other  members,  I  do  not  believe  I  should 
have  to  fight  on  a  regular  basis  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  in  order  to  get  children  who 
live  in  my  riding  the  appropriate  course  here 
in  Ontario,  nor  do  I  think  that  in  19S0  chil- 
dren should  have  to  attend  schools  outside 
of  the  province  or  outside  of  the  country. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Have  you  read  the 
bill?  That  is  what  it  is  about. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  have  read  the  bill  and  I  do 
not  want  any  loopholes  left.  With  respect,  I 
would  like  a  commitment  that  children  with 
learning  disabilities  and  gifted  children  can- 
not in  any  way  be  excluded  from  the  defini- 
tion. In  my  experience,  definition  sections  of 
bills  are  extremely  important.  They  can  be 
the  loophole  under  which  a  board  or  any 
other  authority  can  say,  "It  does  not  fit  the 
definition.  I  am  sorry,  you  lose."  Those  two 
particular  areas  are  a  deep  concern  to  me. 

The  minister  has  shown  a  spirit  of  co- 
operation this  afternoon,  and  I  do  not  wish  to 
destroy  that  spirit.  But  I  must  say,  in  the 
light  of  my  experience  in  this  Legislature, 
too  often  my  faith  has  been  misplaced  in 
legislation  I  thought  was  going  to  help  solve 
a  problem.  So  if  she  will  forgive  me,  I  want 
to  nail  down  every  possible  loophole  this 
afternoon  before  this  bill  becomes  law.  That 


is  why  I  raise  both  those  matters  with  the 
minister  and  I  would  appreciate  her  re- 
sponse. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am 
delighted  with  the  expression,  "nail  down  the 
loophole."  I  find  that  a  little  difficult  to  do. 
None  the  less,  had  the  member  attended  any 
of  the  committee  hearings,  he  would  know 
that  under  section  2  of  this  bill  the  minister 
is  responsible  for  defining  the  exceptionalities. 
I  can  tell  him  that  those  exceptionality  defini- 
tions include  both  dyslexic  and  gifted  chil- 
dren specifically.  The  list  is  available.  It  was 
made  available  to  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee at  the  time  of  the  committee  hearings. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  am  fully  aware  of  that, 
which  is  why  I  raised1  it.  It  is  all  very  nice  to 
have  it  appended.  We  are  not  discussinc 
section  2.  We  are  discussing  section  1,  the 
definition  section.  I  want  to  ensure  the  defini- 
tion of  "special  education  program"  includes 
gifted  children  and  children  with  learning 
disabilities. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  just  said  it  did. 

Mr.  Warner:  With  respect,  Mr.  Chair